Tripolye Culture during the Beginning of the Middle Period (BI)

The relative chronology and local grouping of sites

Ilia Palaguta

BAR International Series 1666 2007

This volume of British Archaeological Reports has been published by: John and Erica Hedges Ltd. British Archaeological Reports 7 Longworth Road Oxford OX2 6RA England Tel/Fax +44(0)1865 511560 E-mail: publishing@barhedges.com www.barhedges.com Enquiries regarding the submission of manuscripts for future publication may be sent to the above address.

BAR S1666 Tripolye Culture during the Beginning of the Middle Period (BI): The relative chronology and local grouping of sites

Ilia Palaguta 2007. Translation and editing of text in English by Dmitri Prokofiev.

Printed in England by 4edge Ltd, Hockley. www.4edge.co.uk ISBN 978 1 4073 0070 2

All BAR titles available from: Hadrian Books 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England Tel +44 (0) 1865 310431 Fax +44 (0) 1865 316916 E-mail: bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk www.hadrianbooks.co.uk The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment, is available free from Hadrian Books or use their web site All volumes are distributed by Hadrian Books Ltd.

To my grandparents, Egorov Vasilij Egorovich and Egorova Galina Vladimirovna I.P.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE (by Dr P.M. Kozhin)..................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................1 Chapter 1. PERIODISATION AND LOCAL VARIATIONS OF TRIPOLYE BI CUCUTENI A CULTURE: A REVIEW OF HISTORIOGRAPHY.........3 Chapter 2. CUCUTENI A TRIPOLYE BI AREA: THE DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SITE GROUPS.........................................................9 Chapter 3. CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES OF TRIPOLYE-CUCUTENI SETTLEMENTS: METHODS OF STUDY AND GENERAL FEATURES OF THE MATERIAL................................................................................................................12 3.1. Current approaches to the study of Tripolye-Cucuteni ceramic assemblages............................................................................................................12 3.2. Ceramic assemblage as the main unit of research..........................................................12 3.3. Pottery technologies......................................................................................................12 Chapter 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIPOLYE BI CUCUTENI SITES......................23 4.1. North-Moldavian settlements.......................................................................................23 4.1.1. Ciugur river site group..........................................................................................23 4.1.2. Drua-Drgueni type settlements in Middle Pruth and Rut river basins............28 4.1.3. Trueti and Cuconetii Vechi I type North-Moldavian sites................................30 4.1.4. North-Moldavian type settlements in Dniester Lands..........................................34 4.2. Settlements of Jura and Bereti type in the Southern part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area....38 4.3. Sites of Central Moldova and Carpathian Region.........................................................44 4.4. Sites of Bug Lands and Bug-Dniester interfluves..........................................................47 Chapter 5. PERIODIZATION AND LOCAL VARIANTS OF TRIPOLYE BI SITES..............50 5.1. Main stages of culture development in Tripolye BI Cucuteni period....................50 5.2. Tripolye-Cucuteni area: zones of prevailing painted or relief-decorated pottery, and additional criteria for zone definition.................................51 5.3. Local variants................................................................................................................53 5.4. Development of local groups........................................................................................55 Chapter 6. POTTERY DECORATIONS AND CULTURE DEVELOPMENT.........................58 6.1. Initial decorative forms and their development.............................................................58 6.2. Helical patterns in Tripolye BI Cucuteni period...................................................61



Chapter 7. TRIPOLYE BI CUCUTENI A AND NEIGHBORING CULTURES: SYNCHRONIZATION AND INTERRELATIONS.................................................................64 7.1. Tripolye-Cucuteni in the range of painted-pottery cultures of Balkan-Carpathian region: the Southern connections......................................................64 7.2. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture and Transcarpathian Eneolithic cultures.............................66 7.3. Eastern connections of Tripolye-Cucuteni: the problem of Cucuteni -type pottery............................................................................67 7.4. North-East of Tripolye area: Advancement towards Dnieper river................................72 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................74 Bibliography..............................................................................................................................76 List of abbreviations..................................................................................................................91 List of figures.............................................................................................................................92

 vi

PREFACE

Since the early 20th century, Tripolye culture of North-Pontic steppes has gradually been introduced into the problem field related to formation and development of archaic agricultural cultures in Southern Europe that started the continuous process of exploration of enormous fertile spaces of Central and Western Europe by agricultural (and combined agricultural and cattle-breeding) peoples. Summarizing reviews of Tripolye-related problems and scholar achievements in this field were repeatedly tendered during the 20th century, phrasing considerably ambiguous conclusions. Without referring to conclusions drawn by V.A.Gorodtsov ( 1910) and H.Schmidt (Schmidt 1932), one may content oneself with noting the latest professional generalizations that are increasingly based on reference chronological columns of multi-layered stratified sites. Overcoming of the archaeological nationalism, first defined in the general tone and specific wording by IndoEuropean studies (J.-A.comtedeGobineau, H.Spencer, et al.) and later developed by the Indo-German school (G.Kossina, C.Schuchhardt, .Menghin, etc.) in science resulted in that modern national borders no longer represent obstacles for the studies of ancient and, especially, prehistoric cultures located at the territories of neighboring present-day countries. This allowed making a closer connection between the research problems of Gumelnia and Tripolye cultures, starting with establishing a common relative macro-chronological system, which was formed by 1980s (, 1982; 1983). Fairly thoroughly developed concepts of common levels and directions of economical activities of both cultures allowed mainly concentrating on actual archaeological materials that are similar throughout the entire explored territory and reveal, as it gradually becomes evident, a relatively monolithic cultural entity. Unfortunately, no common fundamental and terminological bases for characterizing vast territorial blocks with similar archaeological features have so far been defined in the research of such units. It had repeatedly to be mentioned that an archaeological culture is a united field of material manifestations of an ancient human commonwealth that is uniform with respect to its economical, industrial, current-life, and spiritual orientation. Links representing culture of human groups within such a commonwealth were constant, varied and stable, which allowed preserving a certain common communicational background ensuring the same development trend even in the case of a spatial separation. Now a cultural unity is a complex of links between genetically related cultures or those closely interacting at certain stages, that preserve similar development trends, while introducing certain space- and time-specific innovations, due to the main types of their economical and industrial activities, even when their common communicational fields becomes weaker. In order to detect this sort of structures it was necessary first to determine territorial vii

limits of a culture or an entity, and then, to reveal the main material, demographic, population, social, and spiritual factors that provided a solid foundation for the similitude or identity that had already been formed. Naturally, revealing chronological limits of existence of respective unite or similar archaeological formations was a primary issue in solving the abovementioned problems. This could be done in studying large-scale archaeological sites, settlements, that represent long-existing sets of material attributes belonging to a corresponding culture to a comparatively full extent. In the cultural array under study, this set consists of items related to household, economical and social activities. Predominance of settlementtype sites determined certain constraints to research methods. Cultural lifestyle was to be reconstructed by fragmentary materials and such culture-related objects or remains thereof as were accumulated in the ground, within the occupation layers, directly in the course of everyday economical and household activities and, especially, at the moments where people were abandoning respective sites. Pottery objects became a natural guiding material for culture identification. This material is the most widespread one, is fairly fragile and has no value for its owners once the respective objects are broken. The enormous amount of fragmentary, mostly ceramic, articles required a fairly complex analytic procedure to be developed in order to enable analytic processing. Development of such a procedure and implementation of corresponding generalizations based thereon allowed forming a detailed, complex periodization system, which reflects the relative chronology of sites belonging to the culture and the unity throughout its geographical area. Scarcity of archaeological researches, their non-uniform distribution over the territorial area, as well as specific features of distribution of the ancient sites themselves, made it difficult to establish distinct common limits of the culture and the unity that, in addition, might have substantially changed within the periods of settling. While by 1990s the two then revealed stages of Tripolye were believed to be limited to a few centuries, now the BI period alone is allotted more than a half of a millennium (a not very good synchronization table is provided in: 2003: 62). The small number of stratified sites also resulted in certain lacunae in definition of chronological positions of some objects. The growth of amount of archaeological studies allowed for a more detailed specification of site types. Profound researches are aimed, on the one hand, at occupational layers of settlements, and on the other hand, at remnants of individual ancient dwellings, rather than at the mixed occupational layer, which reflects specific features of a very narrow time interval corresponding to a period of collective residence of a specific human group in the place under consideration. Archaeological materials per se, without a thorough reconstruction based on a comprehensive interpretation, does not provide direct grounds

for judgment on quite a number of aspects of social life, familial structures, or social relations that exist in specific active human groups. However, this problem has always been relevant in prehistoric studies. One of its indirect consequences was the tendency, expressed by many scholars, to use archaeological materials not only to substantiate certain ideas related to development circumstances of specific fields of spiritual life that could, to an extent, be expressed in material remains (such as clay figurines, models of houses and their interior decorations, also made of clay, specific features of pottery decor, etc.), but also to determine, based material assemblages, the linguistic affiliation of the cultural environment that had produced the systematic set of the material culture in question. Unfortunately, although the archaeological material was (and largely still is) not in many respects adequate for these super-tasks, they would often be actively discussed and may even be used to construe peremptory and seemingly conclusive deductions. Such conclusions were and are mostly based on various sorts of concepts that attempt to speculatively reconstruct social and spiritual development dynamics of ancient societies, representing all aspects of human culture as a joint and unidirectional vector of continuous progress. Most such constructs are short-lived, as hypothetical conclusions of each specific research group cease to be relevant when confronted with corresponding deductions of other schools of thought. This is especially typical for periods of rapid accumulation of primary archaeological materials, as well as for times when such newly gathered materials start to receive extended research treatment. The present time may probably also be defined as such a period of an interpretational peak. This is why a stricter definition of aims, subjects and directions of scientific research, which is ever going on and constantly develops based on the primary archaeological materials, becomes especially essential. It is also necessary to distinguish the tasks that stem directly from the analysis of materials and the possibilities related to the use of the interpreted materials in recreating the historical picture of everyday life, household, economy, social relations, and spirituality of the corresponding ancient population. Clarification of certain aspects of this picture was undertook by the writer of the present book, I.V.Palaguta, who selected a comparatively narrow period, which is however highly important for research. It is the time when formation of the culture yields place to its intensively progressive flowering age; the extensive economical development of territories is not yet limited by natural possibilities of the explored area; exploration intensity of the natural area has not yet reached the hyper-population level; and material progress does not yet face drastic opposition of the environment, excessive population, limited opportunities of free searches for new forms of economical and household activities; while at the same time, main cultural traditions and principles of living activities of the human environment had already been formed and gradually become a stable and unquestionable norm in most territories under investigation. Posing the abovementioned problems, even in their most general form, and starting to solve them based on

actual archaeological materials rather than abstract modelling proved to require a fundamentally approach to the issues of relative dating of sites, occupational layers and functional assemblages. The high importance of absolute chronology provided by radiocarbon dating cannot be denied. However, errors of specific dates may vary from 150 to as high as 300 years. Therefore, simple comparison of close dates for different sites does not allow one to determine their respective chronological positions. One has to develop probabilistic models taking into account possible chronological errors. Thus, the present-day state of absolute dating does not provide solid bases for a relative chronology of sites or allow establishing their actual simultaneity or real temporal sequences. That is why, a more profound elaboration of properly archaeological micro-chronology was required. This forced I.V.Palaguta enter into the development of genetic archaeological typology (cf. 1984; 1987; 1989; 1994) and look for substantiation of analogies, relative dating, and chronological relations between sites in the archaeological materials themselves. Development of relative chronology for Tripolye culture is complicated by the fact that, contrary to the Middle-Eastern tradition of residential hills, or tells, that manifest a natural and virtually continuous stratification, Tripolye settlements, spread over vast areas of riverside steppes, tend to form single-layer assemblages. Sometimes the latter may feature a progressive growth of the building area volume, existence of non-simultaneous structures, or repeated settling, but these assumptions have not yet been confirmed by any direct data. Some researchers tend to conclude based on this fact that the area of single-layer settlements was occupied uninterruptedly and continuously. This argument is, however, not only weak but, most probably, also wrong. Indeed, building a house in an abandoned territory requires the builders to possess a certain experience in laying out buildings that should be situated on a uniformly compacted ledge soil (now the agricultural lifestyle suggest an easy understanding of such matters, since farmers have a fairly good knowledge of properties of soil surfaces and
It would hardly be appropriate to discuss the fundamental advantages and drawbacks of the method here (cf. 2002: 1316; promising approaches are revealed by the group of authors of: 2005: 1521, 44).  In addition to using natural relief features for settlement organization, early agricultural cultures knew two more systematic methods of formation of villages. In the case of long-lived, constantly renewed settlements, whose area was being transferred into a residential hill that dominated the natural landscape, reconstruction of layers succeeding the originally found settlement was carried out easily due to the fact that a site leveled for a new building would be completely covered with remnants of earlier adobe walls that provided a stable base for structures to be subsequently built. The other method was used in Neolithic China and went on existing throughout the development of traditional Chinese culture. Namely, light loess soils would be thoroughly rammed for a long time all over the area where a new settlement was to be built. Pillars that formed the framework basis of the buildings were then driven into this, already consolidated, soil.


 viii

layers). When selecting such a layer, builders would naturally avoid spots that had previously been excavated for earlier buildings. Using the weak filling soil of earlier structures for ramming piles that make the basis of vertical casing of the future clay building may result in a rather unstable structure that could literally fall apart due to uneven setting and compacting of lower and surrounding layers. At the same time, lack of stratified structures that were chronologically close to each others hampers determining the parameter of actual density of simultaneously living population, which is important for economical and social interpretation. One should also take into account that the currently designed hierarchy of Tripolye settlements (large-, medium-, and small-sized) cannot be directly correlated to immediate parameters of population density in a village at different points of its existence, let alone to that of a number of interrelated villages for each chronological moment, due to the lack of data on relative micro-chronology. This limits our ability to establish actual sizes of human groups. These problems have already been posed with respect to Tripolye materials by one of the prominent researches of early agricultural cultures of the Southern U.S.S.R., S.N.Bibikov. Let us quote his conclusions that mostly remain relevant up to this day: Periodization of Tripolye sites in South-Eastern Europe, although generally developed, still features shortcomings in determination of chronological limits of individual development stages. We still lack firm indicators that could be used to establish chronological correspondences between Tripolye-type sites located in different territories. Attempts to reveal actual historical links, both inside individual Tripolye areas and beyond them, are not frequent. The term simultaneity is mostly used to mean affiliation of sites to the same chronological stage [this is the only point where some progress can be found: the word stage can now be replaced with a smaller chronological unitP.K.], which, however, can be of rather extended a length ( 1964: 1). Although S.N.Bibikovs observations mostly concerned the sites of BII period, they are no less relevant for the present book. It is worthwhile to note here the specific features of circular settlements of more than a hundred houses mentioned by S.N.Bibikov. He suspected them to be tribe centers and admitted that a sui generis cultural syncretism could be developed and maintained in these villages. One might assume that such centers were not used for normal dwelling of different population groups, but represented common gathering places (the closest analogy suggests itself in ancient Scandinavian legislative and judiciary centers, the fields of justice), where houses were only filled with people for regular or occasional general gatherings. Now, as the tendency to interpret all large-sized structures or assemblages as traces of ancient astronomical observatories or similar buildings is much in vogue, a concept, long since established based on culturological and paleoethnographical data and corroborated with ancient written sources, has gone completely out of consideration. It suggested a correlation between social hierarchies of fractions of ancient human groups and their positions with respect to cardinal points

at general gatherings, which could, in particular, explain the circular structure of large settlements. It is still believed that the platform of a Tripolye house is a single archaeological assemblage. However, the discovery of two-storied buildings makes the study of stratigraphic content of each dwelling pit much more complicated. The problem lies in the fact that, as suggests the experience of studies of agricultural settlements, abandoned buildings that lacked systematic replanning such as was done in residential hills would usually be used for dumping household litter, including large amounts of later pottery. Therefore, only the lowest part of the stratigraphy column, i.e. finds located on the floor of dwellings (moreover, only when pottery objects located on the floor are not separate crocks scattered all over the house, but consistent remnants of full vessels; cf. reconstructions of functional assemblages in Jura settlement, as provided in this book) may be considered as materials fully corresponding to the time of functional use of the building. This was what forced the writer to carry out a more detailed study of pottery materials, in order to reveal specific indicators that would provide for reliable determination of composition of pottery assemblages, establishing the moments of their progressive replacement, and finding out the evolution trends of pottery articles and their decors. Generalized characteristics of Tripolye culture demonstrated that the key points in the study of this striking ethno-cultural phenomenon are defined by internal relative chronology, not only of culture periods (that have already been rather firmly determined), but also of territorial variants of sites or even individual dwellings. Problems of the territory of the initial formation of Tripolye-Cucuteni system, of settling directions of Tripolye people groups, of sequence and intensity of such settling, of internal development of all cultural aspects and, first of all, that of the most striking and indicative manifestation of Tripolye self-consciousness in the decoration system of Tripolye pottery, stably remain relevant. They also provide the most promising opportunities for establishing and specification of micro-chronology of sites. The present book was based on the ideas of technical and aesthetical development of ceramic objects and, especially, their decors. Studies of the latter were founded on two main assumptions. On the one hand, a transition between relief and incised decorative patterns towards paint-

 ix

The vast material of house models accumulated up to the present day is unfortunately ill-explored with respect to interior organization of Tripolye houses and, in particular, to the placing of various household objects. However, special places for storages, for processing victuals, for cooking, etc. existed in the houses. Available models allow for exploring this issue, but so far, this research has only scarcely been planned. Taking into account the standardization of resident building, it is quite possible that the very structure of the interior could also produce the temporal changes that took place within the interior. Now one can hardly imagine a better sample of a momentary fixing of the interior than a model made by a person who actually lived at the time in question.


ing of vessel surfaces can be traced. On the other hand, the very forms of decoration change; decorative patterns start featuring abstract curvilinear shapes rather than meaningful figures. The issue of original forms of curvilinear patterns is discussed in the book in enough detail. One should however dwell on some technical points, in particular on the problem of closeness of the articles to their initial prototype that were made of different materials. Scholars have long been lured by the opportunity of relating the origin of decorative patterns found on pottery to manufacturing as woven or wicker articles. However, Tripolye patterns, what with their notoriously curvilinear character and tendencies to form helices and concentric circles, fall rather far away from the possibilities offered by weaving braiding techniques (except for embroidery). Altogether, the approach to this problem that was attempted to be used already by C.Schuchhardt is difficultly applied to many types of actual pottery objects, which could already be seen on samples provided by C.Schuchhardt himself. Permitting opportunities of corresponding techniques should once again be addressed here. A more plausible assumption would be that originally, Tripolye patterns might be performed on wooden vessels made of fairly hard and finely structured sorts of wood. This can apparently also explain the transition from incised to painted decors assumed by the author. Wood carving technique is often rather closely related to incrustation of various decorative hollows using resinous paints that filled decorative groves. Thus, using paint would quasi replace and simplify the process, since it allowed skipping one of the lengthy and laborious operations of applying incised or relief lines onto the vessel surface. It is also important because the very rendering of relief decors on pottery objects assumes a specific state of clay surface, which was only suitable for application of this type of decoration. We know that, in order to maintain a sufficiently plastic state of vessel surfaces for processing, ethnographic potters used to wrap vessels in various cloths, fabrics or half-finished spinning materials that had to be regularly moistened while keeping the vessels in the most humid and cold environment, which always extended the manufacturing process. However, the advent of painting could also be related to the wide use of repeats of woven articles, which can be especially distinctly seen in combined complex-shape vessels. Employment of authors method provided two possibilities: on the one hand, relative chronological series could

be drawn for individual sites or groups thereof based on the degree of abstracting and distortion of original patterns; on the other hand, local groups could be delimited more firmly, since the abstracting process of approximately identical initial decorative patterns might be going on in different directions and at different rates in such groups. One should probably mention here the distinction of areas drawn by the author based on different uses of the so-called binocular vessel forms. I believe that the binocular shape, which most probably initially imitated some sort of household appliances, should be more consistently separated from the so-called monocular form. The latter, wider and steadier, pipes were apparently used as independent supports for various types of round-bottom vessels, similarly to the sites of most areas of early agricultural cultures. Such supports would in some cases be attached to the main reservoir already at the manufacturing stage to form a composite article. This issue, is however yet to be thoroughly checked. The main method chosen for the present work consisted of defining functional assemblages within sites. The author was quite successful in this work, although certain opportunities provided e.g. by sets of clay models of vessels (also made of clay) as found in some Tripolye settlements remain unexplored. On the whole, possibility of using ceramic assemblages to develop a relative chronology of the culture are not yet exhausted; in particular, the issue of types of pottery modeling is far from being thoroughly explored. The work carried out by the author may result in formation of a new promising trend in the studies of relative chronology according to local variations and groups as traced in this book. It would allow for a more detailed determination of actual routes of Tripolye settling, affected by specific features of natural environment of the region and by actual aspirations of specific agricultural groups to explore areal spaces that were optimally suited for their living. I believe that the publication of this research marks the beginning of an entirely new stage in interpretation of Tripolye Antiquities and will result in the development of more reliable reconstructions of real life of Tripolye people in the period of efflorescence of this culture. by Dr P.M.KOZHIN Institute of Far-Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences

Another issue that requires a more thorough exploration is that of paints that were used in pottery decorations and their fixation on vessel surfaces. Analytical work made in this field as cited by the author is far from being perfect. Apparently, most patterns were applied onto ceramic objects, if not before the initial firing, at least before the additional firing, which fixed them on the vessel surface. Such techniques are widely represented both in ethnographical pottery related to painted ware production and in ancient pottery industries of Middle- and East-Asian painted pottery cultures (cf. , 1974: 120, Note 27).


 

This problem is especially relevant for agricultural cultures that used wheel-less pottery technologies, as all household economical activities were concentrated on production of various bakery products, which meant numerous operations with bread dough. Now the transition from processing this dough to making and processing clay puddle in the framework of home works was natural and well-founded.


INTRODUCTION

Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is perhaps one of the most attractive phenomena in European prehistory. Its value is not limited to spectacular excavated artifacts that include remains of multi-stage wattle-and-daub constructions, a wide variety of tools, diverse anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures, and sophisticated polychrome pottery that have significantly enriched our knowledge of daily life and artistic handicraft of Old European population. The millennial duration of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture development and its situation at a junction of different natural and cultural areas predetermined its role as a main source of periodisation of Neolithic and Copper Ages in Eastern, South-Eastern and Central Europe. That is why we have to repeatedly address the materials of TripolyeCucuteni assemblages when solving any considerable problem in the studies on prehistoric cultures of this spacious region. More than a centenary elapsed after the first discovery of Tripolye-Cucuteni settlements. Efforts of several generations of researches made it possible to define the Tripolye-Cucuteni area and to build a framework of its periodisation (Schmidt 1932; Passek 1935; 1949). A constant income of new materials brings about periodical corrections of the relative chronology of Tripolye-Cucuteni sites (Dumitrescu 1963; , 1982 etc.). Early and final periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni (Tripolye APrecucuteni and Tripolye CIIUsatovo-Folteti) received the most elaborate study in series of monographic publications (Marinescu-Blcu 1974; 1989; p 1980; 1981, etc.). The flourishing period denoted as Tripolye BICucuteni A introduces more than 600 sites, which is the largest quantity among other periods. Tens of them have been excavated. Despite multiple publications including some corpuses of sites (Cuco, Monah 1985; Sorochin 1997), this period of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture still remains the least studied one. Its geographical position on the territories of several present-day countries resulted in the appearance of several independent periodisation systems and different methods of artefact diagnostics. The confusion that dominates the literature concerning the problem of synchronisation of Tripolian settlements of individual regions and generation of local chronological columns was, for example, noted by Katerine Chernysh, one of the famous Soviet archaeologists who studied Tripolye-Cucuteni culture (, 1982: 175). Thus, the substantial growth of records calls for a re-consideration of excavated data and more detailed studies of structure and genesis of local settlement groups. Towards the beginning of Tripolye BICucuteni A period, the early agricultural culture that had arisen in Eastern Carpathian area expanded on wide territories of contemporary Romania, Moldova and the Western Ukraine. With the growth of population density, outspread of area and reclamation of peripheral zones, materials from dif-

 

ferent regions began to develop considerable distinctions. The process of culture segmentation was accompanied by series of innovations, such as the appearance of polychrome ware that became the visiting card of TripolyeCucuteni culture for the entire period of its subsequent existence. How did such cultural transformations accrue? What processes in culture development lead to local distinctions of assemblages? Studies of such transformations require a more detailed framework of relative chronology, as well as elaboration of genesis issues for local groups of settlements. Development of Tripolye BICucuteni A culture was also accompanied by qualitative changes in its environment. Links with other agricultural cultures, such as Gumelnia, Petreti and others, continued. All of them made parts of Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical province with its constantly increasing growth of copper mining and metallurgy that marks the highest flourishing point of Balkan proto-civilization. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, located on the North-Eastern border of this agricultural world, was the main spreader of its influences to neighboring territories. Imports of Tripolye pottery became frequent in Neolithic seats of Dnepr-Donets culture in Middle Dnieper area. Besides, it is the time when, for the first time in European history, groups of steppe nomads appear on the scene, bringing about their singular cultural traditions, entirely different from those established in early agricultural societies. Ethno-cultural changes resulting from this new cultural phenomenon have lately been subject to animated discussions. However, studying these issues is impossible without a profound development of Tripolye-Cucuteni chronology framework and an in-depth structural analysis of its areal. Solving this problem also allows one to address the larger-scale tasks of remodeling interrelation structures between various groups of ancient population and ethno-genesis processes. Pottery is the basic material for studies of relative chronology and cross-cultural interrelations, because traditional ceramic production provides the most responsive reaction on cultural changes and substantially reflects local distinctions. The main aim of this monographic work predetermines the study of Tripolye-Cucuteni ceramic assemblages as functional sets of items that united by common pottery-making traditions. This approach allows avoiding the use of individual analogies for establishing the identity of assemblages. Determining main tendencies of assemblage development gives possibilities to reveal real genetic correlations between settlements and their local groups. Furthermore, studying Tripolye-Cucuteni pottery with its polychromic paintings and a complex and varied range of geometric shapes and sizes, unavoidably tempts one to perceive it as a particular variety of art. Such an approach requires a very cautious development, if only due to the fact that, in a few recent decades, a specific trend in ce-

ramic studies is getting increasingly popular, wherein an attempt is made to use the variety of pottery designs for a reconstruction of prehistoric mythology. It is mostly based on annotating data obtained from ceramic materials with widely varied, but often accidental, analogies drawn from spiritual cultures of different countries of the world. We tried to avoid using this approach in the present work. Unfortunately, one is forced to conclude that ceramic designs do not offer any possibilities for reconstruction of mythology and devotions of early agriculturalists. However, studies of ceramic ornaments allow defining the limits, not only of territorial, but also of mental unities of population, and retracing the evolution of their aesthetic, artistic, and spiritual concepts. That is why this book contains a special chapter devoted to reconstruction of design development. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book is based on studies of collections deposited in museums and scientific stocks of Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Kiev, and Chiinu. I would like to thank K.K.Chernysh, N.V.Ryndina and V.M.Bikbayev who allowed me to use the materials of their field-works for publication, as well as E.V.Tsvek, V. A.Dergachev, I.V.Manzura, S.I.Kurchatov, N.N.Skakun and other colleagues with whom I collaborated in expeditions.

This work would not be successful without help and assistance of fellows of Institute of Archaeology of Academy of Science of Moldova, the State Hermitage and Peter the Greats Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera) in Saint-Petersburg, Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and National Museum of History of Ukraine. A substantial contribution to the study of ceramics technologies was provided by the group of researchers from the State Scientific Institute of Restoration (Moscow) under the leadership of N.L.Podvigina who analyzed pigments and binders of Tripolye-Cucuteni paintings. I feel a deep gratitude towards K.K.Chernysh who introduced me to traditions of the Russian school of Tripolye studies, and to P.M.Kozhin who taught me to study ceramics. Many fundamental positions of this work were commented by T.A.Popova, N.K.Kachalova, and V.I.Balabina. I also wish to thank the students of Saint-Petersburg University of Humanities and Social Sciences Katherine Likhacheva, Marina Kratina, Svetlana Zelinina, Anne Korsak, and Katherine Konkova who helped to translate some parts of this book into English. I thank Dmitri Prokofiev who undertook the task of editing the entire text of the book and translating it into English.

 

CHAPTER 1. PERIODISATION AND LOCAL VARIATIONS OF TRIPOLYE BICUCUTENI A CULTURE: A REVIEW OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
During the more than a century-long period of studies of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, problems of its periodisation and chronology, as well as that of defining local groups of sites, were addresses more than once. Several consecutive periods are defined in this culture, determined both by changes in basic concepts common for archaeological researches and by the growth of the material base used in these studies. Limits of such periods are determined based on chronologies suggested in the most relevant general surveys that formulate tasks and problems related for each current period of studies and provide positive answers to the most important historical and archaeological problems that can be solved using the selected methods and concepts. One should also take into account the influence that different scientific schools and trends of the 20th century European archaeology had upon the periodisation of researches. In this context, the geographical position of TripolyeCucuteni culture area at the territories of several modern countries becomes one of the peculiar features of these studies and predetermines the interest paid towards this culture by archaeologists belonging to several different nations. Nevertheless, it was the growing amount of excavated materials that determined the most general research trends. The initial research period, in the late 19thearly 20th century, was concerned with attempts to place the sites of the Stone and Bronze Ages, few in number at the time, in the general framework of history of the mankind. Tripolye culture was initially discovered in Southern Russia by V.V.Khvojka, who excavated the first artifacts belonging to this culture in Dnieper Lands more than a century ago, in 1893. By the end of the 19th century he also provided the first periodisation of discovered settlements, the priority of ceramics as the main object of studies being already determined. Khvojkas periodisation scheme was initially a local one and only concerned Dnieper region settlements. Separation of Early (B) and Late (A) periods was prompted by presence of more primitive pottery in period B sites (Zhukovtsy, Khalepye, Stajki near Kiev; V.N.Domanitskis excavations near Kolodistoye), as well as by metallic objects found in A culture settlements (Veremye, Tripolye, Scherbanevka), which suggested a transition from late Stone to Copper Age.This distinction was purely speculative, since no cases of direct stratigraphy were found, and clear analogies to discovered sites lacked. V.V.Khvojkas chronology was subsequently revisedto establish the reverse sequence of periods (Passek 1935: 130; 1941: 1012; 1949: 23; 1950). Human remains found in excavated burned-clay platforms caused these installations to be interpreted as burial monuments, houses of the dead ( 1899: 808809). This idea survived in Russian school of Tripolye culture studies up to the large-scale excavations undertook by T.S.Passek in 193040s (Kolomijschina, Vladimirovka, etc.), although V.A.Gorodtsov suggested considering these platforms dwellings as early as 1899 ( 1899). An extended comparison of sites found in Southern Russia with materials excavated in Central and SouthEastern Europe was initiated in Russian historiography by E.R.von Stern, who suggested a connection between the settlement he discovered in Petreni (Bessarabia) and the development of Neolithic culture in the area between Dnieper and Thessaly ( 1907: 3941). The expansion region of the culture characterized by installation of platforms and found samples of painted ceramics was outlined by von Stern to include, besides Bessarabia and Dnieper Lands, territories of Galicia (Bilche-Zlota and Gorodnitsa), Bukovina (Shipentsy), Romania (Cucuteni, Sereth), Hungary (Lengyel, Tordosh), Moravia, and Bulgaria ( 1907: 3743). Von Stern attributed the culture to the pre-Mycenaean era, the 3rd millennium B.C., which remained to be an accepted concept until the radiocarbon dating methods came into use in 195060s ( 1907: 4852). Several years earlier, A.A.Spitsyn noted that the rich and highly developed culture [found at Kiev sites] is an Eastern one, specifically belonging to Asia Minor and compared Tripolye painted ceramics to the materials found in Turkistan by R.Pampelly ( 1904: 118). Such far-fetching analogies are to be attributed to the scarcity of known Neolithic sites. However they helped to form the concept of a cultural unity of early Neolithic and Copper Age agricultural peoples of the Old World. After the World War I, studies of Polish and WestUkrainian researches played a major role in solving the problems of periodisation and chronology of Tripolye culture. Studies of Neolithic sites containing painted ceramics started in Galicia and Bukovina as early as 187090s (excavations by G.Ossowski, I.Kopernicki, and W.Przybyslawski). In 192030s, L.Kozowski and O.Kandyba used their results as a basis for local periodisation systems of Tripolye sites. Leon Kozowski noted that the painted ceramics culture belongs to the sphere of Neolithic cultures of Southern Europe. The Polish scholar singled out three groups of painted-ceramics sites within this cultural sphere: the Ukrainian group, the Moldavia-Transylvanian group, and the Thessalian group (Kozowski 1924: 106109). He divided the materials from the Ukrainian group settlements according to different ornaments of vessels to single out: 1) incised-ornament Tripolye type ceramics (Pianishkova, Tripolye); 2) two-colored painted ceramics as present in Petreni, Popudnya, and Sushkovka; and 3) polychrome ceramics of Bilche and Koshilovtsy types. L.Kozowski synchronized Western-Ukrainian painted pottery with that

 

belonging to the Moldavia-Transylvanian group based on a comparison of finds from Niezwiska and Gorodnitsa with the materials from Ariud (Transylvania) and the lower stratum of the settlement excavated in Romanian Moldova by H.Schmidt. Ceramics of Bilche-Zlota type were compared with the upper stratum of Cucuteni and Petreni. It was also confirmed by stratigraphical observations in Shipentsy and Niezwiska. The latest of the sites was the settlement found in Koshilovtsy (Kozowski 1924: 106109, 132134, 149152). Oleg Kandyba used his observations on ceramics of Upper Dnieper sites as a basis for singling out two independent and consecutive Niezwiska and Zaleschiki stages with elder polychrome ceramics ( 1939). The following stages, Gorodnitsa, Bilche, and Koshilovtsy, are characterized by monochrome and younger polychromatic painted ceramics (Kandyba 1937: 122126). He also defines the direction of further researches when discussing in his book the place of the site with respect to the system of surrounding cultures: the revealed synchronization is, naturally, a speculative and schematic one. It is to be confirmed by a precise elaboration of archaeological materials of intermediate domains and by studies of narrow local interrelations, as well as updated with a specific factual content (Kandyba 1937: 126). The first periodisation of Cucuteni culture sites in Romania was undertook by Hubert Schmidt based on the excavations of the multi-stratum eponymic site carried out in 190910. Two horizons were established at CucuteniCetuia site: the lower one (Cucuteni ) featuring dominant polychrome-painted ceramics, and the upper one (Cucuteni B), where mono- and bichromatic painting prevailed. A mixed layer was found between the two strata (Schmidt 1932: 78). The transition stage (Cucuteni ) was revealed due to excavations and a detailed analysis of painting styles at the Cucuteni-Dmbul Morii settlement (Schmidt 1932: 75). Later on, this periodisation was substantially updated by Romanian researchers; there appeared excavation results of new multi-layer settlements such as Izvoare (Matas 1938; Vulpe 1957), where a Precucuteni culture was distinguished, and Ariud, where Cucuteni A and AB phases were stratified (Lszl 1924). Based on these results, the following periodisation stratigraphic model was built: Precucuteni Cucuteni Cucuteni Cucuteni (Dumitrescu 1963; Dumitrescu 1974, etc.). Thus, studies of Romanian multi-layer sites played a key role in periodisation of Tripolye-Cucuteni cultural community as a whole, since stratigraphy alone could provide a reliable basis for establishing the chronological order of found materials. Given the existence of a number of local periodisation schemes, prerequisites for combining the sites discovered
In L.Kozowskis summarizing review on the prehistoric period of South-Eastern Poland, he attributed the earliest settlements with polychrome ceramics of Gorodnitsa-Gorodishche and Niezwiska type to the third Neolithic period of his classification (Kozowski 1939: 2225), while settlements of the subsequent stages, those of Bilche-Zlota and Koshilovtsy, were attributed to the fourth period (Kozowski 1939: 2737).


 

in the Carpathian Mountains and in Dnieper Lands into a single cultural and historical phenomenon were already available early in the 20th century, as a result of comparison of materials from different sites featuring similar types of painted ceramics, if separated in time and space. This was noted by most scholars who tried to summarize the available materials (see Kozowski 1939; Kandyba 1937; etc.). In 1920s, migratory theories of origins of paintedpottery cultures were created to explain this phenomenon as described in publications by H.Schmidt and C.Schuchhardt (Schmidt 1924; Schuchhardt 1926; see also Majewski 1947: 2728). The autochthonic trend developed in Soviet archaeological studies proved to be more than a simple reaction to the migratory approach ( 1933; 1937: 126136; 1940). It followed from the development of the stage development theory that stated that changeovers of economical systems provoke cultural changes without necessarily involving replacement of local population. Within this approach, painted-pottery cultures were interpreted as a certain stage whose development was determined by a certain social and economical structure and, undoubtedly, a well-developed settled mode of living ( 1928: 235). B.L.Bogaevsky noted in his paper on Tripolye tools and domesticated animals that changes in the life of Danube-Dnieper region societies were not caused by movements [] of tribes and peoples, but rather by changes in social and economical circumstances people found themselves in, and their mutual relationship in production processes ( 1937: 131). Tatiana Passek started working out a periodisation of Tripolye culture presupposing its autochthonic development out of local Neolithic culture ( 1947; see 1981: 5). This scheme is influenced by the stage development theory, both when addressing the issue of origins of Tripolye culture, and when generating a model of its development (see 2000a: 57). According to T.S.Passek, the culture of Tripolye tribes, developed based on the local Neolithic Bug-Dniester culture under the influence of Boian culture, was monolithic and clearly distinguished from other neighboring early metallic cultures of Eastern Europe ( 1964: 3). Although this model does not completely rule out a possible influence from Balkan and Mediterranean cultures ( 1949: 231239; 1964: 35, 78), the original and monolithic character of Tripolye culture is also emphasized for later periods where while acquiring local distinguishing features in different regions, Tripolye people preserved internal connections ( 1964: 8). T.S.Passeks periodisation was based on a systematic arrangement of Ukrainian Tripolye sites materials, which was performed at a considerably high methodic level for the time. Using a typological analysis of collections stored in museums in the Ukraine, Moscow and Leningrad, T.S.Passek managed to produce a classification including 21 types of ceramic objects. Materials were classified according to the types of ornaments: monochrome and polychrome painted, incised, fluted, and scratched with a toothed stamp. Persistent combinations of these types were used to establish consecutive periods of ceramics development taking into account local specific features of sited

belonging to the Northern (Dnieper Lands and Bug Region) and Southern (Dniester Lands and North-Western Black Sea coasts) areas at the concluding periods IIC and III (Passek 1935: 141155). Thus, the initial culture development scheme as based on material typology had the following structure: BIIC BI III

This scheme also included A and B cultures distinguished by V.V.Khvojka based on his Dnieper Lands materials. When arranged in the reverse chronological order, these periods correspond to stages BII and C (Passek 1935: 130131; 1949: 54, 128). Due to the lack of stratigraphic data for Ukrainian sites, this periodisation required to be substantially updated when compared with the stratified sites from the Western area. This was done by T.S.Passek in 1941 ( 1941: 1521), as the periodic system itself became divided into the five consecutive stages: I II CI(I) CII (II). Later on, Passek provided the same scheme in her summarizing book published in 1949. This work involved a wider use of comparison of sited discovered at the territory of the Soviet Union with the stratigraphically verified data from the Danube-Dniester basin ( 1949: 2227). Thus, the problem of a common periodisation of sites was solved in general based on a classification of ceramic materials. These results were subsequently corroborated by excavations of multi-layer settlements, such as Polivanov Yar and Niezwiska ( 1961; 1962). The Tripolye periodisation scheme, albeit with some additions, has been in use up to the present day. Common chronological layers were defined based on common features found in artifacts, mostly in ceramics. The period BI that interests us is distinguished by the polychrome ceramics with spiraling patterns comparable to the low levels of Ariud, Izvoare II, Cucuteni A and Ruginoasa, i.e. the sites belonging to the stage A of Cucuteni culture, present in sites materials ( 1949: 4246). These sites include Kadievtsy, Kudrintsy, Gorodnitsa, and Niezwiska II in Dniester Lands, and Sabatinovka in Bug Area ( 1949: 4654). Presence of the polychrome ceramics was also used later to attribute other complexes to period BI ( 1961: 101105). At the same time, sites belonging to the Eastern part of Tripolye area (Borisovka, Krasnostavka), where no painted ceramics was found, were initially ascribed to the early, rather to the middle, period of culture development: local distinguishing features were erroneously interpreted as chronological ones. The most illustrative comparison of different periodisation systems, as suggested by L.Kozowski, O.Kandyba, H.Schmidt, T.S.Passek, and V.V.Khvojko, is provided by Polish scholar K.Majewski (Fig. 1) (see Majewski 1947: Table 1). The period between 1950s and 1980s saw a considerable expansion of the source base of these researches, when tens of Tripolye-Cucuteni sites newly discovered in Romania, Moldavia, and the Ukraine were studied. Changes in the absolute dating were caused by the use of sci-

 

entific dating methods, mostly the radiocarbon method ( 1965). Problems of studies of economy, demography, ecology, and social structures of the early agricultural society in Carpathian and Dnieper-Lands regions were then first posed ( 1979). Further studies in the field of sites periodisation and chronology mostly provided more specific and more detailed definitions of the initial schemes designed by T.S.Passek and H.Schmidt based on the expansion of source base both in the USSR and in Romania. This process is represented most in detail in publications by Romanian scholars. Thus, the Cucuteni A stage was subdivided into four consecutive chronological phases: 1, 2, 3 4 (Dumitrescu 1963). A significant role was played is to be attributed to Radu Vulpes excavations in Izvoare (Vulpe 1956; Vulpe 1957: 3237, 354), where the layer II belonging to this period was subdivided into three levels: level II1 with its bichromatic Proto-Cucuteni pottery, level II1b featuring mixed two- and three-colored ceramics, and level II2 containing Cucuteni style polychromatic pottery. Vladimir Dumitrescu distinguished phases Cucuteni 1, 2 and 3 corresponding to respective Izvoare levels. The scheme he proposed had the following final structure: Cucuteni 1ancient-type bichromatic pottery (whiteline painting on red or brown background), ceramics featuring incised lines combined with bichromatic painting, as well as incised or fluted unpainted ornamental patterns; Cucuteni 2ceramics featuring tri- and bichromatic painting and incised decorations, Cucuteni 3the widest expansion of trichromatic ceramics (the ancient-type bichromatic painting disappearing) combined with ceramics decorated with incised and fluted decorations; and Cucuteni 4trichromatic ceramics; appearance of latter-type bichromatic potterya negative painting on white engobe background (sometimes, as in the case of Drgueni, combined with fluting); disappearance of incised ornamental patterns (Dumitrescu 1963; Dumitrescu 1974: 546547; see Ellis 1984: 6365). The subsequent stages of culture development, Cucuteni and , were subdivided in a similar way, i.e. based on the presence or absence of specific stylistic groups in vessels ornaments (Dumitrescu 1963; Coma 1989: 5254; Niu 1984, etc.). Local specificity of sites was also taken into account. According to Vl.Dumitrescu, local differences between the Northern region (Drgueni) and the central part of Romanian Moldova (Fedeleeni) existed in the final phase of Cucuteni period. This is manifested both by the presence of binocular-shaped objects and the preservation of profoundly incised ornamental patterns in the NorthEast. Sites found in South-Eastern Transylvania are also peculiar (Dumitrescu 1974: 548552). Vl.Dumitrescus scheme in which Cucuteni A stage was subdivided into the four phases proved to be largely speculative. For instance, no sites belonging to Cucuteni 1 phase have yet been found: bichromatic ceramics have always been discovered along with polychromatic samples ( 1993: 86; Mantu 1998).

This seems to be quite natural if one is to examine critically the basis of this scheme, stratigraphic results obtained by R.Vulpe in Izvoare. In five excavation seasons, each including 6 to 13 work days (in 1936, 1938, 1939, 1942, and 1948), only 347m2 of territory was excavated. R.Vulpe himself admitted that the method we had to test in Izvoare excavations, namely, that of excavation of limited portions performed with extended pauses, did not allow studying any Neolithic dwellings to their whole extent (Vulpe 1957: 353354). The area of each portion did not exceed 40m2 (, 1959). Therefore, besides individual stratigraphic observations, results of systematic classification of ceramics also influenced the definition of settlement development phases. Later on, R.Vulpes conclusions concerning Izvoare stratigraphy were generalized by Vl.Dumitrescu and applied to the entire Cucuteni area. The American scholar L.Ellis was quite right to observe that the main source of similar periodisation difficulties lies in the fact that most archeologists tend to assume that each new group of ceramics must represent a new period in technological development (Ellis 1984: 42). Anton Niu suggested a slightly different division of Cucuteni A stage. He divided it into three phases, taking into account local differences revealed in sites found in the central part and the North-East of Romanian Moldova (indices a and b): A1A2abA3ab (Niu 1980). This fact must be taken into account when using Romanian publications: starting from 1980s, many authors use A.Nius scheme rather than the earlier one suggested by Vl.Dumitrescu. However, we prefer to make references to Vl.Dumitrescus periodisation in this work, as it is better known to archaeologists. More specific definition of Tripolye periodisation in Russian archaeology was also developed by subdividing T.S.Passeks scheme and singling out smaller phases within its stages. Thus, observations of stratigraphy and differences in ceramic assemblages of buildings of Polivanov Yar settlement attributed to Layer III of Tripolye BI stage allowed T.A.Popova to suggest two stratigraphic levels in this settlement ( 2003). Classification of Dniester Lands Tripolye BI sites into three phases, as suggested by A.G.Kolesnikov (Korvin-Piotrovsky), was based on a comparison of prospecting results with Polivanov Yar III stratigraphy developed by T.A.Popova (i 1985). The most consistent chronological division of Tripolye BI period was provided in the summarizing book by K.K.Chernysh ( 1978; , 1982: 174, 191194, Table 9). N.M.Vinogradova suggested a special period Tripolye III within the framework of the initial periodisation scheme, which corresponds to the period Cucuteni AB in Romanian classification ( 1983). Stepwise schemes encompassing the entire cultures area played a major role in solving the issues of synchroUnfortunately, observations of potsherds obtained from surface collection mostly fail to represent the actual composition of ceramic assemblages: engobe and painting disintegrate after a few days of the objects exposure to open air.


 

nization of sites belonging to large-scale regions. They are based on the idea of a evolutionary development of culture throughout a territory, without excluding, however, possible local specificity of individual groups of sites. Appearance of such schemes is related to a specific stage of research, where the source base is sufficient to classify the sites of a major region chronologically, and, while local differences are noted, revealing common features is of a higher importance. The main marker used to distinguish Tripolye ICucuteni period is the trichromatic painting of vessels (Cucuteni A group styles according to H.Schmidt and Vl.Dumitrescu). However, painted ceramics is not to be found in all sites; it is rarely or not at all present to the East of Dniester. However, the chronological limits of the period are essentially defined based on this feature alone. It is therefore interesting to note the controversy over the periods lower limit, which arose out of comparison between Romanian and Russian periodisation schemes. Vl.Dumitrescu only compared Tripolye BI to the latter phases (34) of Cucuteni A (Dumitrescu 1974a: 547 548; Dumitrescu 1974b: 3637). Along with some other Romanian scholars (Niu 1980: 145146; Marinescu-Blcu 1981: 137, etc.), he believed that painting appeared to the East of Pruth river at a later date, and sites belonging to the end of earlier Tripolye period such as Luka-Vrublevetskaya correlate to Cucuteni 12 settlements. On the other hand, V.G.Zbenovich who believes that within the entire Early Tripolye Precucuteni area, the gradual transition from one type of sites to another took place more or less synchronously adheres to the traditional analogy between Cucuteni A and Tripolye BI ( 1989: 135136). The same opinion on synchronization issues was expressed by N.B.Burdo ( 1993: 1929). Transition to the next period Cucuteni is determined by the appearance of a new set of painting styles that were already distinguished by H.Schmidt based on Cucuteni excavations of groups , , , and . Inconsistencies present in periodisation schemes also suggest that, as the material for each of the specified regions accumulates, some materials are found that do not fit into the previously designed schemes. Chronological features are not always duly distinguished from local specificities, which results in the mentioned confusion that dominates the literature concerning the problem of synchronisation of Tripolian settlements of individual regions and generation of local chronological columns (, 1982: 175). Introduction of scientificradiocarbon and paleomagnetic datingmethods of dating did not alter the existing situation to any considerable extent. These methods only provide an approximate tracing of the sites age; the obtained precision does not allow for using them to draw out a more detailed chronology. Currently, about 25 radiocarbon dates exist for 16 Tripolye BICucuteni A settlements, falling into the period of about 3750-3350 B.C. Calibration makes their age about one thousand years higher, up to 47004350 B.C. (see Wechler 1994; , , 2000; 2003b). However, as it was many times observed in discussions on the chro-

nology of prehistoric cultures of Central and SouthEastern Europe (cf. Renfrew 1973 and Makkay 1985) results of application of such dating should be compared with archaeological dates. Precision of radiocarbon method also presents a number of problems. It depends on the degree of carbonization of the sample, conditions of its depositing, etc. (see Breunig 1987). Dates obtained in different laboratories and based on the analysis of different materials (e.g. charcoal and bones or seashells) may differ greatly. This circumstance has long been known. For instance, radiocarbon dates for samples obtained from the same burial but analyzed in different laboratories have been known to differ (Ehrich 1965: 439441). Similar discrepancies have also been observed for dates of the period in question, i.e. Tripolye BI. Thus, the date of 375050 B.C. obtained for Drua I (non-calibrated, 712; 1991: 88) is almost 350 years earlier than the sample from the analogous site, Drgueni, which was dated to 3405100 B.C. (Bln1060; Crimaru 1977: 91). Dating obtained for samples from Putineti III may differ by as much as 500 years: 364580 (Bln2427) to 3110120 B.C. (613); Wechler 1994: 18). Besides, the relationship between dated samples and actual archaeological complexes within a site (a dwelling) is usually not analyzed by the researchers. That is why, in the present work, when revealing the relative chronology of sites, we prefer to rely on archaeological materials rather than compare radiocarbon dates (see also 2002: 6466). In parallel to the existing stepwise periodisation schemes, a more dynamic picture of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture development is gradually taking shape by 197080s. It is based on the interpretation of culture as a complex of interrelated local and chronological groups of sites, which is a more realistic representation of the process of settling of early agriculturalists and the segmentation of culture that was involved in it ( 1978). This approach was revealed in publications by Yu.N.Zakharuk and V.A.Dergachev who mostly studied latter Tripolye sites. The approach was based on defining local and chronological groups or site types (see 1964: 2837) and finding out connections between them ( 1980: 1924). When revealing local differences between the sites of the period in question (Cucuteni Tripolye I), most researchers only established the existence of such differences between the two region within the Tripolye-Cucuteni area ( 1975). These are the area located to the West of Dniester river, where ceramic assemblages found in settlements are dominated by ceramics ornamented with painted patterns, or Cucuteni culture ( 1989), and the zone to the East of Dniester, where relief-pattern ceramics prevails, or Eastern Tripolye culture ( 2003).

Attempts of a more detailed local division of Tripolye ICucuteni sites within these regions have also been undertaken. As it was noted above, Vl.Dumitrescu distinguished Drgueni sites located in North-Eastern Romania from those situated further to the South, such as Fedeleeni (Dumitrescu 1974). E.V.Tsvek distinguishes a number of site groups in Bug river region ( 1987; 1989; 1990; 1999). Nevertheless, Tripolye ICucuteni have not yet generally been sufficiently studied from the point of view of their local differences. Most site groups are defined according to their territorial attributes rather than to the specificity of materials. K.K.Chernysh noted that the studies of the locality problem were hindered by a tendency to group Tripolye settlements by major river basins ( 1981: 6). Thus, distinction of three local site groups in Dnieper Lands suggested by T.G.Movsha was based on the territorial principle: Upper Dnieper Lands contain the sites of the type of Gorodnitsa and Niezwiska II; the middle region includes these of the type of Polivanov Yar and Kadievtsy; and sites of the type of Solonceni II and Jura are confined in the southern part of the territory ( 1971: 167170). However, this division was not convincingly enough demonstrated using the materials of specific sites. In a later summarizing work ( 1985: 211 222), classification by site groups was already presented based on Zaleschiki, Solonceni and Bug-Dnieper local variants of the later Tripolye III period as suggested by N.M.Vinogradova ( 1983). The territorial principle for singling out local variants was expressed to the largest extent in the works by V.Ya.Sorokin ( 1989; Sorochin 2002). The main criterion used to attribute sites to the Drgueni-Jura as defined by this author was, essentially, their location in a conditionally delimited region (Pruth-Dniester interfluves area), which was mostly determined by present-day administrative borders, as well as by materials available to the author. The most consistent definition of local groups of sites belonging to the beginning of middle Tripolye (BI) period was carried out by K.K.Chernysh ( 1981; , 1982: 201204). A key feature of this work lay in using a method based on exclusive study of settlements according to the principle of their genetic relations rather than according to their territorial attributes. The problem of studies of the process of formation and genesis of local variants was also posed for the first time ( 1981: 6). K.K.Chernysh marked the following
A number of my drawings were used in V.Ya.Sorokins book (Sorochin 2002: Fig. 60; 78/5; 79; 88; 94; 99; 104; 107; 108; 112 114; 118/12, 45, 7); part of them consisted of imprecise draft sketches, that were updated later on (Sorochin 2002: Fig. 78/5; 94/4; cf. Fig. 46/7 and 9/10 in the present book). This is probably why V.Ya.Sorokin published a drawing of the same vessel twice (Sorochin 2002: Fig. 78/5 107/7). Ceramic assemblages of Drua I and Jura settlements were represented by V.Ya.Sorokin based virtually on these drawings only. Therefore, his interpretation of Jura assemblage as belonging to the same local variant as Drua I and Drgueni is not corroborated by an actual analysis of this settlements complex, but is rather based on individual analogies.


In relation to the controversy on definition of individual cultures in the framework of Tripolye-Cucuteni, a noteworthy opinion was expressed by L.Ellis who believes it advisable to consider these sites within a common Neo-Eneolithic culture rather than dividing it according to present-day administrative and national borders (Ellis 1996: 7587).


 

site groups in Tripolye BICucuteni period: 1) Carpathian and Southern Moldavian group; 2) Pruth-Dniester group; 3) Dniester-Bug-Dnieper group; 4) Bug-Dnieper group; 5) Middle-Dniester group; and 6) Upper-Dniester site group ( 1981: Fig. 2). However, during the nearly 20 years since these studies results were published, a significant number of new sources were introduced into the professional circulation, which allow to update some aspects of the suggested scheme. Besides, the issues of local divisions were addressed in fairly general studies without a detailed analysis of site materials, most of which

have never been published. One should also take into account that the lack of reliable periodisation systems and that of clearly enough defined local groups are also related to the uneven character of field researches and the different degrees of our knowledge of different Tripolye BI sites. A number of problems arise out of the differences in the methodical level of processing of archaeological materials including, most importantly, ceramics. It is the ceramics studies that provide a basis for nearly all chronological constructions and definition of local divisions of the culture.

 

CHAPTER 2. CUCUTENI ATRIPOLYE BI AREA: THE DEGREE OF KNOWLEDGE AND SITE GROUPS
By the beginning of Tripolye BICucuteni period, the area of this early agricultural culture covered vast territories of forest-steppe and Southern forest zones of Eastern Europe, between Carpathian Mountains and the BugDniester interfluves region, totaling up to an area of up to 150,000 square kilometers (Fig. 3). This region is characterized by presence of comparatively fertile and easyto-cultivate loess soils (, 1982: 166). Currently, this territory is divided between Romania, Moldavian Republic, and the Ukraine. Although the natural environment is largely uniform throughout the Tripolye-Cucuteni area, it is convenient to consider its individual regions conditionally defined by basins and interfluves of major rivers that, to an extent, also correspond to present-day administrative division. Three such regions can be delimited: Romanian Moldova (to the East of river Pruth), South-Eastern Transylvania (in Romania), and Bug Lands with the Bug-Dniester interfluves region (in Right-Bank Ukraine). Sites contained in these regions have also been studied to different extents. The westernmost of the three groups of Tripolye-Cucuteni sites (Ariud type sites) is isolated from the main area: it is located beyond the Eastern Carpathian mountain range, along the upper course of river Olt in East-Southern Transylvania. Although Carpathian Mountains reach the altitudes of 1,7001,900m, several mountain passes connect the valley of river Olt to those of Trotu and Bstria (tributaries of river Sereth) that run down the Eastern slopes of Carpathian Mountains. Southern Carpathian mountain passes link the Olt valley to Lower-Danube lowlands located further to the South. To the East and North-East of Carpathian Mountains, Cucuteni sites are found virtually throughout the entire territory of Romanian Moldova. First of all, they are located in Carpathian foothills that are incised with narrow and deep valleys of right-hand Sereth tributaries, the largest of them being rivers Suceava, Moldova, Trotu, and Bstria. This region features altitudes ranging from 500 600 to 9001000m above sea level (Istoria Romniei 1960: XXI). The next region corresponds to Central Moldavian Plateau located in Sereth-Pruth interfluves. The terrain is considerably lower in this region: altitudes above sea level do not exceed 300m. The Northern part (the Moldavian Plain) of the Central Moldavian Plateau is incised with valleys of river related to Prut river basin. The largest tributaries of the latter are Jijia river and its tributary, Bahlui river. Further to the South, a more elevated part of Romanian Moldova is located, formed by Brlad Plateau with tributaries of Brlad river that flows into Sereth (Istoria Romniei 1960: XXIXXIII; Cuco, Monah 1985: 2530).
The westernmost Cucuteni site is Sngeorgiu settlement located on river Mure (Cuco, Monah 1985: 218).


 

Romanian territory is sufficiently well studied. By the middle of 1980s, 1,311 sites belonging to Cucuteni culture were discovered in the region. 522 of them were attributed to Cucuteni period (Cuco, Monah 1985: 4243). A map of Cucuteni A sites published by D.Monah and .Cuco (Cuco, Monah, 1985: Fig. 1) based on numerous prospecting researches (Nestor et al. 1952; PetrescuDmbovia et al. 1958; Florescu, Cpitanu 1969; Zaharia et al. 1970, etc.) shows quite a number of settlement agglomerations mostly localized in medium and smaller rivers valleys (see Fig. 3): 1) in the valleys of Middle Pruth river and its tributary Jijia, in the North-Eastern part of Romanian Moldova; 2) in the valleys of Bahlui river and its tributaries, near the modern city of Iai; 3) in Moldova-Bstria interfluves; 4) along the upper flow of Brlad rivers and in its tributaries valleys; 5) in the Southern site group, directly adjacent to the latter, in Brlad-Prut interfluves, in the department of Galai. Separate Cucuteni settlements have also been discovered in the basin of Suceava river, at the North of Romanian Moldova, and along the tributaries of rivers Trotu and Putna to the South. Existence of site groups similar to those found in other regions is highly probable in these areas too, but these territories remain comparatively less well-studied (see 1980: 2526, Fig. 1). Complete topographical data are provided by D. A.Monah and .Cuco for 349 out of 522 Cucuteni sites. Most settlements (78% of them) are located on elevated territories, just 22% of them being found in river valleys. This distribution is not only characteristic for this period: the dominance of elevated topography sites has also been noted for subsequent periods of Cucuteni and culture development (Cuco, Monah 1985: 42). When considering Romanian sites of Cucuteni culture, one also faces rather peculiar a circumstance that is unusual for other territories: the number of these sites is considerably higher than that for latter periods of the culture development. Thus, there exist 1.61.7 times more Cucuteni A than Cucuteni settlements , their number being also 4.2 times bigger than that of Cucuteni sites (Fig. 2). How should this ratio be interpreted? Of course, the simplest way to explain it is to suggest that a sharp rise of population density, a demographic explosion, took place in Romanian Moldova during the Cucuteni period (see Manzura 1999: 149). However, other explanations can also be considered. Firstly, the length of this period could be bigger than that of subsequent periods. This hypothesis is not confirmed by the limits of radiocarbon dating of Cucuteni : all dates lie in a range three to four hundred year long, its length being comparable to that of latter periods.

However, we have already noted the imprecision of radiocarbon dating when used for exact chronological reconstruction. Secondly, a possibility of erroneous attribution of sites cannot be ruled out. The main marker used for attributing sites to one of the periods Cucuteni or is absence or, respectively, presence of latter painting styles; however, their appearance in different local groups did not take place simultaneously. Earlier styles exist in parallel to them. Therefore, the scarce material obtained in prospecting collection makes an unreliable basis for determining the relative chronology of sites: many of them could be ascribed to Cucuteni period, but actually existed at the stage of Cucuteni 1. It is also quite possible that the three above reasons of disproportional distribution of sites by periods had their combine effect. The territory of Moldovan Republic has a physical and geographical aspect of a hilly plain, largely incised with river valleys and featuring a general fall of altitudes from North-West towards South-East. To the North of the region, Khotyn Hills stand out; the Eastern part is dominated by Dniester Range; and Kodrin Hills reaching the altitude of up to 429m above sea level is located in the center. The space between these heights is occupied by Bli Steppe (the North-Moldovan low plains). In the Western part of Khotyn Hills, in the interfluves of rivers Pruth and Reuth, a peculiar feature of the relief is formed by so-called toltres, limestone ridges that can reach the heights of up to 6065m above river valleys ( 1947: 912). Tripolye sites are mostly located in the Northern and Central parts of Pruth-Dniester interfluves. According to paleographical reconstructions, all this territory belonged to the forest-steppe zone during Atlantic Holocene period, along with the forest region at Kodry Mountains and the Bli Steppe that had a much smaller territory than now ( 1991: 135141; Sorochin 1997: 1011). A much larger expansion of forests is also suggested by paleozoological studies: many species of forest-dwelling mammals and birds were prevalent in the current foreststeppe zone at the time in question ( 1963; , 1966; , 1967). According to V.I.Marchevicis summarizing list of Eneolithic sites of Moldavia, 148 settlements are attributed to the middle Tripolye period ( 1973: 41). However, only about 40 of them can be more or less definitively dated to the period BI. Up to now, the most comprehensive list was provided by V.Ya.Sorokin; according to it, 91 Tripolye BICucuteni A sites have been noted in Moldavian territory (Sorochin 1997: 12, 5576, Map 1). Two denser clusters of sites stand out in Pruth-Dniester interfluves: 1) at the North-East of Moldavia, along the left-hand tributaries of river Pruth; and 2) at Dniester Range, along the valley of Dniester river, approximately up to the modern cities of Tiraspol and Bendery. Small settlement groups are known to be located within the Bli Steppe zone, at the upper and middle flow of Reuth river and along its tributaries. The Kodry moun-

 10

tain region remained virtually unpopulated during Tripolye BI period, but this area is very ill-studied. To the South of it, only separate settlements have been found (Rusetii Noi I, Horodca I, Crbuna, Jora de Sus, Rezina, etc.); this can however be also related to our limited knowledge of this region. Both Tripolye I settlement clusters in Northern Moldavia effectively form a joint group of sites located in Prut-Dniester interfluves. The conventional character of defining the two groups here is evident: it were these two region that were examined the most in detail by the Tripolye and Moldavian Neolithic expedition in 1950s to early 1970s (see 1973: 56, 41, Fig. 12). Sites belonging to the beginning of high Tripolye BI period in the Ukraine have, unfortunately, been studied less than those located in Moldavia. So far, 56 such sites are known; comprehensive data on 12 of them lack (Sorochin 1997: 12, 3755, Map 2). Their geographical span in the Ukraine includes the left bank of Middle Dniester river (the South of Podolsk Heights), part of Upper Dniester Lands (Bukovina and Carpatho-Ukraine regions in the interfluves area between Dniester and Upper Pruth rivers), as well as the extended Southern Bug basin, a forest-steppe zone between Podolsk and Dnieper Heights in the form of a hilly plain, getting lower towards the East and separated by river valleys. Apaprently, Dnieper Lands and Volhynia Heights were not developed at the time: settlement of Tripolye culture only appear at that region starting from Tripolye II period (ii 1981; 1987; Jastrzebski 1989). Numerous Tripolye I settlements exist in Middle Dniester Lands; most of them were discovered in prospecting by the Tripolye expedition ( 1961). The territory occupied by these sites is adjacent to the NorthMoldavian area. In Upper Dniester Lands, the number of settlement belonging to the period in question is much smaller. The westernmost of them is Niezwiska II settlement located in Ivano-Frankivsk region (ii 1981: . 4). A number of Tripolye BI sites are located in middle and upper parts of Bug Lands, as well as in the basin of the left-hand tributary of Bug river, river Sob (i 1926; 1956; 1989, 1990; 1993; 1959). Settlements of Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I located in the South of Middle Bug Lands are somewhat separate from the rest ( 1933; 1964; 1971; 1991; 1993). Less than ten sites are known to be located in BugDniester interfluves; only three of them have been excavated: these are settlements situated close to the villages of Zarubintsy, Krasnostavka, Onopriyevka ( 1957; 1980; 1985; , 1990). However, several tens of sites belonging to latter Tripolye periods were found in this territory (see 1989; 1993; 1993, etc.). The reason of such small a number of known Tripolye BI settlements in the region does not only lie in the insufficient knowledge of this area, but also in the fact that the territories of the North-Eastern edges of Tripolye-Cucuteni area were still less developed at the time in question.

A more detailed analysis of the results of mapping Tripolye sites of the period does not only reveals the abovementioned major clusters (see Fig. 3) that may correspond to local variants. Micro-groups of sites are also detected that can often be located at comparatively small distances (2 to 5 km) from each others (Fig. 4; 5; 6). Micro-groups of sites belonging to the same period has been defined in thoroughly prospected regions (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1958; Florescu, Cpitanu 1969; Zaharia et al. 1970; , 1982; Palaguta 1998; 2000; Palaguta 2003, etc.). In most cases, such micro-clusters are concentrated in valleys of small rivers or attracted to a specific portion of flow of a bigger river. Apparently, they form structural elements of larger local units. Site mapping allows one to get a general idea of the spatial structure of Tripolye culture during period BI, which includes both large territorial groups (local variants) and micro-groups of sites. This grouping pattern of Tripolye-Cucuteni sites can be interpreted in to ways: as reflecting a hierarchical or a mobile structure of settlement. However, in both cases, studies of sites chronology should be based on local chronological columns that provide the most comprehensive picture of culture development sequence in specific regions. When considering interrelated sites within a common territory, the probability of mistaking local differences for chronological ones becomes smaller. This approach predetermined the structure of the present work, which was progressing from local groups towards revealing large territorial structures based on a consistent comparison of ceramic assemblages. The present-day condition of sources makes such an enterprise feasible. Monographic researches have been published on some Romanian sitesCucuteni, Frumuica, Hbeti, Izvoare, Drgueni, Trpeti, Truetithat include a sufficietnly comprehensive presentation of potteryrelated materials (Schmidt 1932; Petrescu-Dmbovia 1966; Matas 1946; Dumitrescu et al. 1954; Vulpe 1957; Crmaru 1977; Marinescu-Blcu 1981; Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999). Many sites, such as Ariud, Bereti, Ruginoasa,

Bonteti, Topile, Mitoc, Calu, Poineti, etc. have been subject of dedicated papers that provide a general idea of main features of ceramic artifacts found there (Lszl 1924; Dragomir 1985; Dumitrescu H. 1933; Dumitrescu Vl. 1933; Marinescu-Blcu 1977; Popovici 1986; Vulpe 1941; Vulpe 1953, etc.). Tripolye BICucuteni sites in Moldavia and the Ukraine are not so fully represented in professional publications. Settlements of Duruitoarea Nou I, Duruitoarea Vechi, and Brnzeni IV excavated by V.I.Marchevici and K.K.Chernysh have only been discussed in preliminary papers (, 1974; , 1975; , 1976; 1978). An important source of information is provided by published results of excavations by T.S.Passek in Polivanov Yar ( 1961; 2003), by K.K.Chernysh in Niezwiska ( 1962), by S.N.Bibikov in Jura ( 1954; 1998c; , 1999), by V.Ya.Sorokin in Jora de Sus and Putineti (Sorokin 1996; 1997), by V.I.Marchevici in Rusetii Noi and Cuconetii Vechi ( 1970; Marchevici, 1997; 1997b), by V. A.Shumova in Vasilevka (, 1989; 1994), and by N.V.Ryndina in Drua I ( 1984, 1985, 1986; 1995). Materials obtained in settlements of Ttruca Nou III and Drgneti have been introduced into professional consideration by the author of the present book (, 1997; 1997; Palaguta 1998; Palaguta 2003a). The Eastern part of the culture area, Bug Lands, and Bug-Dniester interfluves, is illustrated by published materials obtained in excavations of Borisovka, Krasnostavka, Zarubintsy, Berezovskaya GES, and Pechora (see 1957; 1980; 1985; 1933; 1971, 1976; 1959). Thus, due to efforts made by several generations of scholars, ceramic materials obtained from a few tens of settlements are now ready for detailed researches. The accumulated material provides the necessary source base for addressing the problems of locality and finding out the trends of development of different groups of sites.

The terms site group or local-chronological site group are sometimes used to denote local units including territories of considerably large areas, comparable to local variants (see 1993).


 11

CHAPTER 3. CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES OF TRIPOLYE-CUCUTENI SETTLEMENTS: METHODS OF STUDY AND GENERAL FEATURES OF THE MATERIAL

3.1. Current approaches to the study of Tripolye-Cucuteni ceramic assemblages

Ceramic material, due to its high prevalence, provides the most sensitive representation of chronological and local specificity of sites. Working lifetime of pottery articles is short, ware sets require to be regularly renewed; therefore, changes in decoration and shapes of vessels also occur rather frequently. Besides, pottery production is typically linked to local sources of raw materials and is not therefore concentrated in any specific location: each settlement could have its own potter craftsmen. That is why ceramics is what is used as a base for most archaeological concepts and reconstructions. Ceramic studies most frequently use two interrelated approaches: the morphological approach takes into account specific features of vessel shapes, while the stylistic approach examines the decor of ceramic objects. Both approaches were, to a smaller or greater extent, applied by various researchers of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, since the principles of generating material classifications taking into account shape and decor attributes determine the production of periodic and chronological schemes, as well as their reliability. However, in most studies of Tripolye-Cucuteni pottery, decor aspects were preferred as representing the most accessible and the most diverse set of features of ceramic assemblages. It was the ornamental principle that became the basis of a majority of classifications of Tripolye ceramics. Differences in decoration techniques formed the foundation of pottery classification by T.S.Passek as well as of most subsequent classification systems. Vessel shapes were also taken into account, but to a lesser extent (Passek 1935; 1949). This can be partially explained by the predominance of fragments, rather than entire vessels, in pottery sets of Tripolye sites. The most frequently used method to generate periodic schemes of High Tripolye culture period consisted of analyzing ceramic assemblages from the point of view of percentages of different pottery groups manufactured using different decoration techniques. This method was applied by T.A.Popova when addressing the issues of periodisation and chronology of Polivanov Yar III ( 1972; 2003). Pottery found in the layer III of Polivanov Yar was divided into four groups according to the technique of surface decoration. According to T.S.Passeks systematization, the following groups were defined: 1) ceramics with helical-band incised decor; 2) ceramics with fluted decor; 3) rough, rugged surface pottery; and 4) painted pottery ( 1972: 56). Different quantitative ratios between the groups correspond to different periods of the settlement existence: at later phases, the amount of pottery with incised and fluted decor decreased, while the presence of Cucuteni A type ware with trichromatic painted became larger ( 1972: 78). This trend was, to an extent, corroborated by the site stratigraphy. A similar method was used by E.V.Tsvek to examine Tripolye sites in Bug-Dniester interfluves ( 1980; 1985; 1987). Her systematization was also based on the ornamental principle, and the periodisation of sites was built upon the respective percentages of vessel groups and categories in each of the settlements under study ( 1987: 67; 1980: 183, Fig. 8). Here, as in all above systematizations, vessel shapes were only taken into account as an auxiliary to the decor system. V.Ya.Sorokin also classified pottery according to decoration types ( 1989; 1990: 96 98). However, when processing Middle Tripolye materials from Prut-Dniester interfluves, he chose to describe ceramics of all sites of the region collectively, similarly to a description of a separate settlement, having previously defined them as a single local variant Drgueni-Jura (Sorochin 2002: 97135). This approach did not allow for a consecutive comparison of assemblages to reveal their respective chronology and local differences, as is customary in archaeology. Therefore, the authors conclusions on the unity of materials collected in this, conventionally defined, territory, remained unsubstantiated. A somewhat different systematization from those described above was proposed by V.G.Zbenovich for Early Tripolye pottery, based on a technological principle taking into account admixtures to the clay mass, character of surface treatment, and the degree of firing ( 1989: 75). He divided pottery into three groups according to visible differences of puddle. Shape and decoration varieties were considered within each of these groups ( 1989: 75109). According to this author, definition of the chronological sequence order of sites is influenced by statistically registered changes in shapes, decoration patterns, and relations between technological groups. In reality, he only took into account changes in quantitative manifestation of individual attributes, such as incised and pinched decor, according to an accepted idea stating that ceramics of the earliest settlements should have features that are characteristic to crockery of preceding Neolithic cultures, such as Cri, Boian, etc. ( 1989: 127, Fig. 80).

 12

Vertical stratigraphy was only traced in one case, where half-dugout No. 3 overlapped ditch No. 1 (, 2003: 12, Table 2).


Works on typology of elements and compositions found in Tripolye ornamental patterns performed as early as 192030s by L.A.Dintses, L.ikalenko, and O.Kandyba are of unquestionable interest. Thus, the aim of L.A.Dintsess paper was to study decoration systems of each vessel shape and to reveal complication processes of these decoration systems. According to this author, resulting individual complication systems could allow determining common features providing indicators of shapecreation logic of ornamental arts in each region and, based on the latter, not only to fix interrelations between separate regions, but also to determine the order of their succession ( 1929: 16). However, the scheme of pattern development Dintses suggested based on Dnieper Lands materials proved to be fundamentally incorrect. It was based on the evolutionary concept of development of ornamental figure forms from simpler to complex ones (see 1990: 46); simpler stylized compositions, rather than complex helical patterns, were taken to be the initial shapes. Stylization tracks and development of helical snakelike patterns were considered by L.ikalenko ( 1926; ikalenko 1927; ikalenko 1930). However, these studies were unfortunately carried out on small amounts of materials: they only used several vessels from Petreny and Bilche Zlota. According to O.Kandyba, the criterion to establish the development scheme of Galician painted pottery lies in differences in profiling and proportions of individual basic shapes, as well as the degree of decay or complication of basic ornamental patterns. In this way, series of typological patterns can be established that start from primitive shapes and initial patterns (running spiral) and go up to well-developed shapes and derived patterns (spiral decay) ( 1939: 2). Such typological studies of decorations in Russian publications are limited to the cited sources: this topic remained less explored ever since. A major series of studies addressing decorations of Tripolye pottery ( 1931; 1965; Gimbutas 1987; 1990; 1991; 1994; 1994, etc.) mostly concerns the problems of interpretation of decorations of specific vessels, without examining pattern variations on the scale of ceramic assemblages or revealing their development. Studies of pottery painting styles form a typical trend of Romanian historiography. The sources of the stylistic analysis can be found in classical 19th century archaeology ( 1923: 7778). It was first applied to Cucuteni-Tripolye ceramics by H.Schmidt (Schmidt 1932; see also Niu 1985: 2733). He introduced the fairly comprehensive notion of painting style that is in use by Romanian archaeologists up to the present day. When defining styles, stable decorative patterns are taken into account in addition to painting techniques and color combinations (see 1983: 45). H.Schmidt defined the Cucuteni A painting style, as well as styles , , , , , and variations thereof attributed to the pottery of the transition period (Cucuteni AB) and Cucuteni . Chronological order of styles was determined according to the stratigraphy of Cucuteni-Cetuia site

 13

and the studies of the nearby Cucuteni-Dmbul Morii settlement. Stylistic analysis was further developed in Vl.Dumitrescus works. When processing materials obtained from Traian-Dealul Fntnilor III settlement, a more finely divided structure was suggested for the style system of Cucuteni period, in parallel with an attempt to reveal the style evolution (Dumitrescu 1945). Vl.Dumitrescu used the same approach to divide Cucuteni periods into specific phases; doing this he renounced the traditional lettering notation of styles (his periodization scheme was presented in Chapter 1 above). Cucuteni period was similarly divided into the two phases, 1 and 2, based on differences in decoration styles. The first phases is characterized by styles and groups and ; the second one features continuation of said stylistic groups along with appearance of new ones, namely, groups and that find a progressively extended use in vessel decorations. Cucuteni period was subdivided into phases according to the same principle: based on a quantitative predomination of either group styles or those belonging to later groups and (Dumitrescu 1963; Coma 1989: 5354). A.Niu addressed periodization issues using calculated percentage ratios between different decoration groups (styles), which resulted in suggesting a division of Cucuteni A period into three phases that are somewhat different from those defined by Vl.Dumitrescu (Niu 1980; Niu 1984). Among Russian researchers, N.M.Vinogradova also applied the stylistic analysis method to generate a periodization and local variants distribution for Cucuteni Tripolye BIII sites in Pruth-Dniester interfluves. She used the style system developed by Romanian scholars updated to incorporate new species. Calculating the percentage ratios between different styles allowed her to reveal a fairly distinct system of sites. Ceramic assemblages of sites of the period found in Bug and Dnieper Lands were compared to Western area sites according to found specimens of painted pottery ( 1983). The style system used by Romanian researchers is not free from certain drawbacks. It does not feature any welldefined levels for fixing attributes of color patterns, compositions, or decoration elements. For instance, styles of different groups 1 and 1 are only distinguished by shapes of decoration figures, while sharing a common principle of application of decor: black painting over white background ( 1983: 97). On the other hand, some of the groups, such as group , are distinguished according to the colors of their decorations. When defining styles, one also should take into consideration the fact that their distribution within groups may often be based on the sequence of paint application to the vessel surface. Romanian historiography defines a decoration background as the first layer of paint, engobe, or natural surface, rather than the spaces between decor elements. All these factors produce a number of problems in defining styles. The above classifications of decors, each featuring peculiar advantages and drawbacks, allowed generating a basis for culture periodization and defining major local

groups of sites. The main characteristic of these classifications lies in considering decoration systems independently of vessel shapes. Only the presence and peculiarity of specific shapes for a certain period or local variant are usually taken into consideration; their genesis is examined to a lesser extent. Studies of decors from the point of view of technique of their application only allows for a most general classification, while the style system is rather cumbersome and sophisticated. The use of generalized classifications that are solely based on the ornamental principle is exhausted when it comes to specifying the problems of development studies for ceramic assemblages of sites separated from each others by minimal chronological gaps. Quite naturally, there appears a need in a somewhat different approach that would synthesize the results from studies of decor stylistics, pottery shapes, and, quite importantly, techniques and technologies of pottery manufacturing. An example of such an approach can be found in studies of Late Tripolye ceramics (stage IIII according to T.S.Passeks system) undertaken by V.A.Dergachev. When processing his materials, he used a pottery classification based on revealing three main characteristics: technical and technological features providing information on clay mixture composition, quality of firing and treatment of vessel surfaces, morphological characteristics and stylistic attributes. Pottery peculiarity is revealed in its typology that is defined by correlating all types of characteristics ( 1980: 5455). Comparison of morphological and stylistic attributes in each technical/technological group allowed distinguishing several characteristic types of ceramics. To do so, V.A.Dergachev used cross-occurrence tables that linked different shapes to ornamental types ( 1980: Table 2). That provided a realistic possibility to compare different assemblages according to both qualitative and quantitative occurrences of characteristics ( 1980: 5462, Fig. 8). The formal classification approach can be applied for comparison of assemblages; however, its use cannot be extended to the interpretation of assemblages or revealing the genesis of each of pottery groups. According to P.M.Kozhin, classification and statistical analysis [], while being quite efficient in defining areas and large chronological blocks, does not provide bases for conclusions on actual genetic links between groups of ceramic articles coming from different sites that are located widely apart in time ( 1989: 55). In order to solve this problem, pottery should be considered as products of specific manufacturers who produced their pottery according to the same, or different, rules, which allows distinguishing imitations from systematic development of a specific sort of articles, such development taking place in the framework of one or several cultural traditions ( 1989: 5556; see also 1981: 132135). It is in the context of such a
In this case, the admixture of sand, limestone or broken cockleshells that distinguish the category of so-called kitchen pottery from tableware made of well-washed clay mixture ( 1980: 55) can be determined visually.


 14

traditionally typological approach that one should consider different attempts on typology of Tripolye decor patterns undertaken by L.A.Dintses, L.ikalenko, and O.Kandyba in their respective times. Considering ceramic articles as a result of activities of a specific economic and social group [of people] ( 1989: 56) is impossible without reconstructing the process of pottery manufacturing. However, the technology of Tripolye pottery production is not yet well enough studied. This holds true with respect to both vessel modeling process and decoration technique, even though the related groups of characteristics provide the most information for studies of ethno-historical processes as well as intra- and intercultural relations. Results of different researches in this field still await being generalized and systemized. Most studies of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture also virtually neglected the issue of distribution of ceramic finds in occupation layers of settlements and in buildings, as well as that of their differences and characteristics. This issue may be of vital importance when comparing assemblages that are principally different in origin. Quantitative analysis of layer compositions was only carried out by V.I.Balabina to characterize the Early Tripolye settlement layer in Bernashevka ( 1982). Fragmentary observations have also been provided on pottery context in some buildings and pottery furnaces ( 1959; 1990; , 1992; , 1987; 1994; 1998). There exist some isolated studies of layer context of zoomorphic plastic arts and flint tools ( 1990; , 1990). So, the problem of formation of occupation layers in Tripolye settlements and, therefore, that of qualitative and quantitative distinctions of different ceramic assemblages of excavated buildings, remains virtually unstudied up to this day. The above review of research methods applied to Tripolye pottery demonstrates that, on the whole, these researches were aimed at solving two major problems: defining fairly extensive chronological strata, and revealing local groups of sites. This explains, among other things, the predominance of material systematization according to decoration techniques, it being the best suitable for studies in the spatial and temporal frameworks of an entire archaeological culture. The same reason can partially account for the absence of data on contexts of ceramic finds. Moreover, during excavation of buildings, more attention was traditionally paid to studying their structure and design (see 1979) rather than to fixing pottery that was typically collected by squares rather than as individual finds. Comparison of vessel shapes and decorations was only carried out in few works; the same holds true for typological studies of changes in decoration compositions. Researches in the field of pottery technologies were separated from studies of local peculiarities and periodization of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture. It resulted in that, in defining a more detailed relative chronology of sites and delimiting microregions, i.e. in transition to a new level of studies of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, it is necessary to adjust the existing methods of examination of pottery artifacts.

3.2. Ceramic assemblage as the main unit of research

When studying site groups and revealing their relative chronology, ceramics serves as one of the clearest indicators of chronological and geographical differences and similarities. There exist two possible approaches to using pottery for culture periodization. One of them is based on a collective classification of materials of all studied sites, with further correlation of allocated ceramic groups to these sites assemblages. As it was already marked above, such a formalistic approach to classification is quite acceptable when solving global problems of chronological subdivision, using comparatively small amounts of material. T.S.Passeks work that provides a model of this approach in Tripolye studies eventually became a basis of the currently used periodization of this culture (Passek 1935). This is an unavoidable stage of studies of a culture, based on selecting certain characteristics of the initial material and generating a scale of their peculiarities (chronological or local) that is further used for comparison with newly obtained materials. The other approach comprises studying ceramic assemblages of settlements considered as basic units for comparison of their materials, both within the limits of the culture and in revealing intercultural links and interactions ( 1999b). Ceramic assemblage of a site includes the aggregate of all archaeological ceramics deposited in the settlement occupation layer during its entire existence period. It can be further subdivided e.g. into the assemblages of specific settlement objects: those of the occupation layer, or deposits ( 1995: 212, 261), and those belonging to individual structures, such as separate buildings, pits, etc. However, it is especially important to consider an assemblage not as a simple aggregate of finds, but rather as a product of vital activity of a certain economical and social entity ( 1989: 55 56). Therefore, studying an assemblage is not limited to sheer classification of ceramics, as reflected in the formal research trend ( 1981: 132), but involves considering a ceramic assemblage from the point of view of its functional and productive aspects, i.e. its place within the limits of life-support and production subsystems of the culture ( 1990: 2728). When considering the occupation layer of a settlement as an archaeological source, one should note that some results of field activities, especially those of past years, do not always provide comprehensive characteristics of excavated objects, due to the fact that excavation techniques corresponded to the tasks set at the respective period of studies of the culture ( 2001: 5354). Even within the limits of individual structures, pottery was usually collected by 22 m squares, and frequently without mapping it in the diagrams. Therefore, in some cases, it may be difficult to isolate synchronous assemblages. Most publications lack precise descriptions of mass ceramic materials, only describing isolated examples used as markers of periods, or presenting general characteristics of a collections, e.g. percentages of different ornamental groups. Formalistic approach based on statistics of decoration types does not usually consider the distinctive features of composition of ceramic assemblages. Therefore, attempts to compare various objects that differ by their composition and structure frequently lead to mistakes in their interpretation. One of the key moments of a content-oriented critical analysis of archeological sources lies in revealing the place of the ceramics in specific stratigraphic and planigraphic contexts, e.g. within the limits of an individual building, an accumulation of vessels in or outside such a building, in a pit, a pottery kiln, etc. It is essential whether such ceramics is found in situ or in re-deposited position. Only the finds located in a common layer context can be considered to have existed and been used simultaneously, thus making a closed assemblage ( 1970: 8385; closed, or unified assemblage, or Geschlossenen Funden according to O.Montelius, see 1984: 203). Besides, one should always bear in mind the possibility of earlier or later time materials occurring in structures considered to be such closed assemblages. All of the above concepts is not only essential in revealing stratigraphy of finds and determining objects that were functional in different periods of existence of the settlement and the length of the layer accumulation. Joint finding of vessels in certain contexts allows defining groups of artifacts that were in simultaneous use, and enables proceeding with studies of assemblages from the point of view of their functionality. The functional aspect of a ceramic assemblage is also revealed, in addition to the general context of an arrangement of finds in a layer, in the presence of specific pottery sets that were necessary for inhabitants of the settlement. To characterize such sets, it is the most convenient to use the concept of a functional assemblage, wherein the interrelation of subjects is not necessarily defined within the limits of a dwelling, a settlements or even a uniform cultural layer [...], but is rather determined by their application in a common economic cycle ( 1990: 120 121). In ceramics studies these are primarily sets pottery shapes, since it is the morphological differences that provide the most adequate reflection of functional features of vessels (Rice 1987: 207217; 1988). Such pottery sets can vary in different cultures depending on the more or less extensive use, in parallel with ceramics, of articles made of other materials (wood, wicker, leather, etc.) but having the same basic functionality as ceramic vessels, i.e. being reservoirs or containers. The Tripolye-Cucuteni set of pottery shapes that can also be considered as functional categories is diverse and relatively stable. The following 15 pottery shapes defined according to the presence and shape of main structural elements are characteristic of Tripolye BICucuteni A period (Fig. 7). 1. Bowls. The following varieties of bowls existed during Tripolye BICucuteni A period: a) truncated-cone
Foreign-culture elements, such as the group of pottery with shell additives in clay mixture belonging to Cucuteni C type, fall outside the set. These are discussed in Chapter 7.


 15

bowls; b) bowls with a truncated-cone bodies and everted rims that should be regarded as a subset of the preceding shape; their common feature is being modeled out of three horizontal clay bands, and the only distinction is in the position of the top rim-band (Fig. 7/1); c) S-shaped profile bowls, i.e. those with convex walls and exverted rims (Fig. 50/5); d) hemispherical bowls (Fig. 61/6; 62/4); and e) cylinder-conic bowls, with vertical rims and truncatedcone shaped bodies (Fig. 33/6). Bowls are usually supplied with handles (ears) with horizontal openings typically located under the rims or on bowl bodies. 2. Bowls on high, hollow pedestals. The shape of the upper part of such bowls is similar to pedestal-less bowls as described above. A pedestal, distinguished form a base tray according to its parameters (a typical base tray being of a small height, while the pedestal height is equal to or larger than its diameter), is usually of a truncatedcone shape, with a slightly exverted lower rim (Fig. 7/2). Handles are often located in such bowls at the junction of a bowl body and support, rather than at the rim. Some supports feature side perforations (Fig. 29/16). 3. Pear-shaped vessels (commonly called grain-carrying vessels), usually used with lids. A pear-shaped vessels gas an elongated truncated-cone bottom part (Fig. 7/4). The bottom part of pear-shaped vessels is sometimes accentuated by a profile break. Some of these vessels feature base trays. The rim is small-sized and inwardly inclined (to fit the lid). Handles of pear-shaped vessels containing vertical openings are usually located at the level of the greatest diameter (although some vessels may feature up to 23 tiers of handles). 4. Spherical or sphero-conical body vessels have shapes that are close to those of pear-shaped vessels (Fig. 7/5), since these vessels were also used with lids. They often have base trays or supports and feature the same type handles as pear-shaped vessels. 5. Two-tier vessels were also used with covers. They appear to consist of two parts: the bottom part represents a body of a pear-shaped vessel, and the hemispherical upper part imitates the top part of a spherical vessel (Fig. 31/4; 39/10). 6. Lids feature body shapes similar to that of bowls (Fig. 7/3). They were used with pear-shaped, spherical, and two-tiered vessels. Their ear-shaped handles have vertical channel openings that could be used to attach a lid to a pear-shaped or spherical vessel by a rope (lid handles usually correspond to respective handles on the bodies of such vessels). The following varieties of lids have been encountered: a) lids with hemispherical bodies and mushroom-shaped tops (Fig. 34/7); b) lids with discshaped tops and bodies consisting of hemispherical and conic parts (Fig. 30/2; 48/2; 57/11, 13; 76/6); c) lids with disc-shaped tops and hemispherical bodies (Fig. 30/1, 34, etc.); d) hemispherical lids (Fig. 29/10; 71/3); and e) helmet-shaped lids with hemispherical bodies and wide, bellshaped rims (Fig. 34/5; 68/2). 7. Jugs (Fig. 7/6) are sometimes termed amphorae in Romanian and the Ukrainian historiography. They have
Similar Early Tripolye shapes are traditionally termed, rather inappropriately in my opinion, fruit-bowls.


a high cylindrical neck and two massive handles adapted for carrying. 8. Pots (Fig. 7/7) called craters in Romanian literature (see Dumitrescu 1945: 43, Fig. 19/10 ac). 9. Beakers (Fig. 7/8). Beakers variants differ by modeling of necks and rims. They can be: a) of a smooth S-shaped profile (Fig. 35/3; 77/13, etc.); b) with a spherical body and a small everted rim (Fig. 35/7; 76/2; 82/4, 11; 83/1, 2, 4, etc.); c) with a cylindrical neck and a small everted rim (Fig. 30/7, 9, 12; 32/1; 49/4; 50/89; 76/4, etc.). Many beakers feature one or two ear-shaped handles with horizontal or vertical channels. 10. Anthropomorphic vessels, of shapes close to those of beakers. Bodies of these vessels imitate female body frame (Fig. 7/9). 1112. A special group of pottery is formed by monocular and binocular articles that represent, respectively, one or two interconnected hollow tubes (Fig. 7/10, 11). 13. Spoons and scoops (Fig. 39/12). 1415. Pot- or jar-shaped vessels that can be conventionally denoted as cauldrons and pithoi. The shape of cauldrons is similar to that of deep bowls (Fig. 7/12), and pithoi are distinguished by their narrowed necks (Fig. 7/13). They are traditionally attributed to the kitchenware group due to their rough rugged surface devoid of decorations. This basic set is found, with small variations (for instance, spoons and scoops are not present in all settlements), in most sites of the developed-stage Tripolye (BI, BII according to T.S.Passek), and represent one of the basic characteristics of this culture (, 1982: Tables LXVI, LXXIII). It is genetically connected with the vessels set of the preceding Tripolye APrecucuteni stage ( 1989: 75107, Fig. 47). Variations within the limits of this set that reflect both local and chronological differences of sites materials are considered below when describing ceramic assemblages of specific sites. Stability of the pottery set is confirmed by series of miniature vessels that imitate normal-size pottery. They were made at a sufficiently high professional level, using the same (clay-band) technique and could be used in rituals. This articles form a group of models, or miniature copies of large-size items (such as anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures, models of houses and sledges, axes, etc.), that stand apart from the main body of household and ritual vessel shapes. Fairly representative series of miniature vessels are present in many of Tripolye-Cucuteni settlements that were subject to large-scale excavations (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 385, pl. CXI; Crmaru 1977: 6061, Fig. 41; Matas 1946: pl. XLIXL; Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999: 313, 417, 446, Fig. 203, 305, 334337; etc.). The quantitative contents of different pottery shapes varies depending on the context in which the pottery finds
Ukrainian archaeologists usually use the term craters for deep bowls with bell-shaped rims typical Tripolye BII period in the Eastern part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area (see: 1980: 173, Fig. 3/710). Their origin is, to a degree, linked to helmet-shaped lids. These vessels are not in any way related to classic Greek craters.


 16

are considered. A set may reflect general characteristics of a layer (as a rule, with more fragments than whole vessels found), or indicate a specificity of an individual object, featuring a group of vessels that existed simultaneously and were left in situ. Therefore, when comparing materials of different site and settlement structures one can come upon assemblages that are widely different in content. Hence, not only quantitative, but also qualitative characteristics of these assemblages may differ. Assemblages that can be characterized as open and closed feature substantially different compositions of pottery shapes in their sets (Fig. 814). Our calculations based on materials from some Tripolye BI settlements of Northern Moldova show that in ceramic assemblage where pottery fragments prevail (Ttruca Nou III, Drua I, Cuconetii Vechi I), the percentage of bowl fragments is up to 2530%, that of cup fragments is 2025%, and that of kitchenware, 1020%. However, when dwellings or other compact assemblages include sets of unbroken vessels (Jura, Brnzeni IV), these pottery shapes do not prevail over other types. Distinction between these assemblages provides a vivid illustration of the proportion between both parameters: the percentage of restorable items, which reflects their preservation degree, (80 to 100% in closed assemblages) and the share of bowls, beakers and kitchenware (such as cauldrons and pithoi), the most frequently found everyday ware, that accumulated more rapidly in the layer surrounding dwellings (Fig. 15) (see 1999b). The shorter lifetime of everyday ware compared with that of storage vessels (and, therefore, the larger amounts of the former) was also noted in ethnographic examples (DeBoer, Lathrap 1979: 121124; Longacre 1985; Rice 1987: 293305, Table 9.5). These differences of assemblages play an important role in determining the closeness of ceramic collections, as well as in revealing chronology and local distinctions of sites. When studying these issues, one must compare assemblages of different nature: open ones that reflect a certain period of accumulation of materials, and closed ones that include sets of ware having been in simultaneous use and left as is. Such studies demonstrate that the traditionally used method of assemblage comparison by percentages of different ornamental groups, as defined according to different decoration techniques, is not applicable, especially when revealing small-scale differences, such as defining the spatial stratigraphy of a site or comparing different sites, attributed to neighboring periods and belonging to the same local group. A more detailed research requires a new level of study of assemblage contents, which involves a comparison of typological modifications within a single variety of pottery shapes and decorations ( 1999b). Assemblages of Tripolye BICucuteni A period usually contain up to 8090% of decorated ware. Undecorated pottery, the smooth-surface kitchenware with band-wise leveling, only amounts to 1020%. The main varieties of ornaments differ by techniques and coloring of compositions. 1.Streaked decorations were applied by a sharpended instrument. Lines are up to 0.20.3 cm wide, their profile being mainly of a triangular shape (Fig. 27/6).

 17

2.Incised decorations were made with a stick or a small tubular bone on sufficiently wet clay. Lines are 0.30.5 cm wide and up to 0.30.4 cm deep, typically of a semicircular profile (Fig. 28/14). The space between the incised lines is painted with red ochre (rarely with a black paint). Incisions are often filled with a white paste. Incised lines may trace the outlines of decorative figures (negative decoration) or constitute the drawing itself (positive drawing). 3.Fluted decorations are shallow and wide (0.51 cm). They were made with a tool featuring a wide flat working edge, possibly a bone or a wooden paddle (Fig. 28/56). Flutes could also be polished. Such decorations are frequently combined with painting the flutes and spaces between them in white and red. 4.Trichromatic painting is done in by white, black and red (Fig. 34; 35/17, 14; 51/18; 68/19; 77, etc.). Ornamental figures are made of wide white bands bordered by narrower black lines. Intervals between ornamental figures (the background) are painted in red or brown. The reverse order of colors has also been used: in this case, the ornamental figures are red, and the background is white. Different types of ornaments vary in details of ornamental bands (e.g. the lengthwise red line or nervure may be present or absent in the middle of a white band) and the background (that can be evenly painted or hatched). 5.Bichromatic painting in thin white lines against a red or brown background was named the ancient bichromatic painting by Vl.Dumitrescu (Fig. 78/25; 79/23). 6.Red-and-white bichromatic painting (Fig. 38) is derived from incised and fluted painted decors, since it preserves the primary colors and motives of relief decorations (the late bichromatic painting according to Vl.Dumitrescu) (Dumitrescu 1974). 7.Black-on-white stroked painting applied in black or dark-brown paint against a white background (engobe) (Fig. 35/813; 62/38, etc.). This (proto-) style makes the basis of -group styles that feature black or darkbrown painting against a white background, engobe, or the natural surface of the vessel (Fig. 63/1, 89) (Dumitrescu 1945: 4950; 1983: 97, Fig. 21/1011). Painting in -group styles is mostly characteristic for later Cucuteni AB time, although it already appears in individual samples of Cucuteni ATripolye BI. The basic types of ceramics are revealed by correlating different pottery shapes to ornaments in correlation tables (Fig. 1621). A similar processing was applied by V.A.Dergachev to Late Tripolye ceramics ( 1980: 5462). Such systematizing allows proceeding to the actually typological research of ceramics based on revealing: 1) interrelations between pottery shapes and decoration types; 2) directions of typological development from the structural layout towards the visual aspect of details (with respect to both forms and decorations), as well as variants of irregular reference to various plot elements and deconstruction of original items;

3) cross-influences of pottery types, manifested in using unusual decorations for standard shapes or in creation of synthetic shapes. It is also necessary to bear in mind that typological changes can traced with the highest precision in a uniform cultural environment, wherein a personal transfer of knowledge and manufacturing experience is possible ( 1984: 204205). A series of subjects of the same shape allows tracking not only changes in decoration techniques, but also those in its decor elements and their compositions. It is of a primary importance for definition of relative chronology of site groups belonging to the same period. Typological changes are usually also usually reflected quantitative parameters. Given the similar directions of type development, prevalence of specific ornaments in pottery of a certain shape, is in most cases normally distributed ( 1965: 291). Thus, defining a chronological sequence of sites can be achieved by comparison of quantities of typologically early and late ware belonging to the same functional category (Fig. 22) (Palaguta 1999b). A ceramic assemblage of a settlement represents a set of pottery produced within the framework of one or several, more or less interrelated, traditions. Therefore, its studies are not limited to defining a number of pottery shapes or decoration types and their quantitative amounts (the statistical analysis), or to revealing technical and technological peculiarities of manufacturing. It also supposes finding out interrelations between them. This approach, that considers Tripolye ceramics within the framework of united functional and industrial complexes, allows investigating the pottery by revealing similarly directed typological changes of products ( 1984: 202205; 1994a: 122; 1994). Within such a functional and industrial complex, one of ceramic traditions is typically predominant and defines the

main characteristics of the complex. Other traditions play secondary roles; they may be formed by series of imitative or degrading ware. Detailed analysis can applied to the studies of the most informative referential assemblages. When full data on ceramics of a settlement lack, the available selectuion can be dated by comparison with materials of other sites. Pottery articles that make chronological and local markers play an important role in this. When determining the place of an incomplete collection, the most suitable reference points are provided in pottery types of limited existence periods that have been systematically fixed in the most fully studied assemblages. The approximate character of such definitions is however obvious: typologically earlier or later articles may accidentally occur in a small-size selection, which would make the site seem respectively older or younger to an extent. Thus, revealing chronological and local differences between the materials of Tripolye BICucuteni A sites requires a consecutive application of many different methods, including: 1) mapping of settlements in order to reveal territorial groups; 2) definition of stratigraphic and planigraphic contexts of ceramic assemblages; 3) studies of the complex of pottery decorations and shapes, as well as specific features of pottery technologies; 4) typological studies of pottery and definition of main development trends of pottery shapes and decors; and 5) comparison of pottery assemblages based on the above and revealing genetic interrelations between them. The different levels of exploration of different settlements predetermine the research being primarily concentrated on the best investigated items that can be used as reference objects.

3.3. Pottery technologies

In spite of the fact that reconstruction of pottery technologies forms a comparably independent field in studies of Neolithic cultures, determination of characteristic pottery methods plays a major part in revealing genetic interrelations between ceramic complexes. The process of pottery production can be summarized in four steps: 1) Preparation of the initial materials and production of modeling mixture; 2) Vessel modeling and forming; pre-firing surface processing and pre-firing decoration; 3) Drying and firing of the article; and 4) Post-firing decoration of the article and preparation for use (Shepard 1956). Definition of number and complexity of methods used at each of the stages of this production sequence, that
On the principle of normal distribution of finds in a layer see: 1965: 302307; 1970: 8694. In Tripolye-Cucuteni, this approach is applicable to the comparison of genetically interconnected sites that form a uniform local group.


 18

required a master to possess a certain amount of knowledge to learn, as well as the stability of implementation of these methods on series of products, make a foundation of both typological concepts and the estimates of the specialization level of pottery industry. Studies of formulae of modeling mixtures used in Tripolye pottery are few in number. Isolated observations on Tripolye ceramics can be found in publications by E.V.Sayko and I.A.Gey ( 1984; , 1989; 1986). Tripolye ware would typically be made of washed clay with admixtures of chamotte or dry clay ( 1984: 135142). Tripolye technology of pottery mass procession is characterized by selective choice of mineral raw materials; stable manufacturing methods; [and the] accomplished unity of solutions to specific technical problems in producing moldable clay mixture ( 1984: 141). Based on materials from Cuconetii Vechi I, I.A.Gey distinguished several formulae of modeling mixtures including both mineral and organic non-plastic materials. No clear correlations between these mixtures and vessel groups of different shapes could be revealed ( 1986: 2227).

This probably suggest that a tradition of making different types of crockery out of different materials has not yet been developed. This conclusion is also corroborated by our own observations of pottery from the same site and other settlements: both plain (undecorated) kitchenware and ornament-decorated tableware are made of clay with an admixture of chamotte. The next stage of pottery production involves modeling a preform of the article. Specific features of modeling and forming techniques can be detected visually: joint areas between structural elements are marked by characteristic interstices and caverns at the transversal surfaces of crock breaks; edges and impressions of bands can often be seen in breaks along the seams (see Shepard 1956: 183186). Such traces can be seen especially clearly near the bottom of a vessel body, or at the points where handles were attached to a vessel. Studies of modeling techniques in Tripolye BI settlements of Pruth-Dniester interfluve region demonstrated that these techniques were formed based on two manufacturing traditions that can be conventionally denoted as flat-bottom and round-bottom (Fig. 23/12 and 23/45; see also 1991: 136137; 1999d; Palaguta 2002; 2005). According to the first, flat-bottom routine, vessel modeling was carried out starting from a cake-shaped preform of the bottom placed on a flat or slightly convex support (Fig. 23/2; 29/6). Vessels manufactured according to this routine prevail in most settlements studied by the author. The round-bottom tradition of vessel manufacturing (based on the use of a preform shaped as shallow hemispherical bowl) is not so distinctly manifested (Fig. 24/1). This method is characteristic for beakers and vessels with spherical bodies, although items manufactured according to the flat-bottom tradition are also present among these shapes. Both traditions are interrelated. It is probable that the same master could implement the one or the other of the technological schemes depending on the type of product to be manufactured. Some specific features are revealed in studying modeling methods used for other vessel parts: vessel body, neck and rim. The main of these methods is assembling bands that can be 23 cm to 710 cm wide, according to article size. In manufacturing large-size vessels, the method of modeling out of plates could also be used ( 1952: 176181; 1994: 91, Fig. 1/14). This method can sometimes be established by presence of vertical seams corresponding to joints between the plates (Fig. 10/2). Besides, the method of vessel assembling out of structural elements could be employed ( 1907: 2021; Passek 1935: 45). This method could appear as a result of over-drying the lower, truncated-cone-shaped, part of larger vessels so as to avoid deformation of this part during the subsequent band joining. A similar drying of elements was detected in ethnographic pottery ( 1959: 3637). Assembling of pre-manufactured parts is especially noticeable in pear-shaped vessels, where the lower trunIn the provided figures, soldered joints between bands are marked in vessel profiles, and their directions are indicated with arrows.


 19

cated-cone-shaped part can often be separated not only by a significant break of profile line, but also by a zone of decoration pattern characteristic for bowls. In spherical vessels, assembling of two hemispherical parts can be traced by presence of a seam or edge noticeable in the break at the location of the joint between these parts (Fig. 34/1). The band method was predominantly used in Tripolye pottery. The original idea of vessel forming using a filled blank was first suggested by V.A.Gorodtsov in order to reconstruct the modeling method of Fatyanovo vessels ( 1922). Opinions on the use of similar methods in manufacturing Tripolye ware originating from Gorodtsovs hypothesis have been expressed in a number of studies (, 1983: 209211, . 49; 1994: 62), but the available evidence suggests that this method was not used in Tripolye-Cucuteni culture or anywhere else in ethnographic pottery. A different situation is found with the use of hard moldings that could be used in the form of bowls or lower parts of defective vessels. This method was widely common worldwide to be used in modeling standardized items (Guthe 1925: 3151, Fig. 6ad; Shepard 1956: 185; Rice 1987: 125126, Fig. 5.3). So far, no evidence of use of this method could be found in Ttipolye BICucuteni pottery, but it might have been used at latter stages of culture development, where pottery articles would become more standardized (see 1995: 133, Fig. 37). Considering methods of vessel modeling allowed making yet another fairly important conclusion. Number of bands used for modeling specific types of ware proved to be constant in vessels found in neighboring sites. Thus, in a number of North-Moldavian settlements, jugs are usually assembled of 6 bands, 2 of them forming the neck, and the remaining 4 being in the vessel body (Fig. 30/10 11; 43/6). Pots are also formed in a similar way (Fig. 33/3). Number of bands constituting the body of a pearshaped vessel might be larger (Fig. 30/6; 31/13). Variations of forming of individual elements can even be observed within a ceramic assemblage of the same site. Thus, there are different methods of forming rims of pearshaped vessels: a rim could be affixed to the body on the inside (Fig. 31/13) or applied on the outside. The latter variation is not typical for the period under consideration and has so far only been found in isolated articles (Fig. 37/6). Upper parts of beakers (Fig. 32/1, 4) are manufactured similarly to jug necks: they are formed by a wider band of the upper part of the body and a narrow, up to 23cm wide, band of the rim. These structural elements also have similar sizes: normal diameters of beakers and those of jug necks oscillate in rather narrow a range of 1012cm. Methods of modeling bowls, as observed in most items of examined collections, is also standardized. Their walls are mostly assembled of three bands, two of them forming the body, and the upper band producing the rim (Fig. 29/511; 40/5; 56/2, 9). Standard sizes of bowls existed, too: we have noted at least five standard diameters among the bowls found in Ttruca Nou III (1214cm, 1718cm, 2326cm, 3032cm, and 4446cm). Characteristic methods can be observed in attachments of large-size jug handles and central connections of

binocular vessels. In most cases, parts are connected with tongue-and-groove joints that were transferred to pottery from solid-material structures (Fig. 24/3). The stability of pottery production methods among Tripolye potters is vividly enough illustrated by miniature vessels. It would seem that forming such articles requires but minimum skill. However, most of them were manufactured at a professional level, using the band technique analogous to the methods of modeling normal-size ware (Fig. 36). The above main methods of vessel modeling are not peculiar to Tripolye BICucuteni period only. They were also found both in earlier and in later settlements. However, despite the similarity of general sets of techniques, specific distinctions can be observed in local and chronological groups of sites. Preforms were further processed by scraping and trimming excessive clay using tools made of wood or bone, such as a knife or a spatula (see Rye 1981: 8687; Sinopoli 1991: 2325). Bone tools that could possibly be used for trimming were found in Luka-Vrublevetskaya, Drgueni and Sabatinovka, and identified by G.F.Korobkova in a traceological study of bone appliances of a wide range of other Tripolye settlements (Fig. 25/13, 45, 78) (rimaru 1977: 22, Fig. 14/13; Bolomeu, Marinescu-Blcu 1988; 1933: 79, Table 40/3; 1987: Tables 44, 45, 48, 4950, 53). Unio shells could also be used as pottery knives. The characteristic elongated traces of trimming can clearly be seen at the inner, undecorated, surface of vessels (Fig. 24/45), while at the outer surface they would often be polished off or concealed by overlaying engobe or painting. Paddle-and-anvil technique was used in manufacturing the so-called shell-tempered Cucuteni ware ( 1956: 152; 1964: 5358; Rye 1981: 8485; 1959: 146151, etc.). Appearance of pottery produced using the paddle-and-anvil method in Tripolye settlements is related to the sites of the steppe area in Northern Black Sea littoral; this technique is not however typically used in properly Tripolye pottery ( 1998). No traces of preform processing in rotary motion devices have so far been found in Tripolye ICucuteni sites pottery. Trimming traces are arranged in a chaotic manner. Parallel horizontal lines produced due to turning the processed preform, can be noted in some samples belonging to the subsequent period of 1, e.g. in the vessel from Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului settlement (Fig. 26) ( 1997b: 113, Fig. 1/10). Traces found on vessel bottoms indicated that in Tripolye ICucuteni period, supports with sand filling were used for modeling vessels. Forming some types of articles could also involve putting large pottery crocks under the vessel bottom. This method was possibly used in manufacturing convex-bottom beakers and lids with convex disc-shaped knobs. Relief, fluted and incised decorations were applied immediately after vessel forming and trimming. In articles of the final part of Tripolye ICucuteni 4 period, this
The author would like to thank I.G.Sarachev who provided the photographs in Fig. 26/12; 28/13, 56.


 20

operation was performed on sufficiently wet clay, before it reached the leather-hard conditions. After that point, only harrowing of decorations was possible (Shepard 1956: 193203, Fig. 14; Rye 1981: 70, Fig. 47a). Use of drier preforms was detected in samples from earlier sites, from Early TripolyePrecucuteni up to the Cucuteni 3 stage inclusively (Fig. 27/37). Incised lines forming up the decor in these cases are mainly produced using a sharp-ended tool (Fig. 27/3, 6). This makes Precucuteni pottery alike to ceramics of Gimelnia and Boian cultures, where, similarly to Precucuteni III, incised decorations reminiscent of wood carving were used (Fig. 27/12). Transition to wetter preforms and, accordingly, to the use of decorating appliances with wider workin edges, occurs about the end of Tripolye BI period and can be seen in pottery of virtually all local groups. Profound grooved-incised decor is applied with a stick or a tubular bone (Fig. 28/14). Tubular impressions were also detected in Early Tripolye samples, such as Floreti pottery (Fig. 27/5). Traces of similar tools were also observed in vessels of Tripolye ICucuteni period. Flutes were produced using a tool with a working edge of rounded or square plane shape (Fig. 28/5, 6). V.Ya.Sorokin published an assembled bone decorating tool in the form of compasses that can be used for drawing helical patterns ( 1987: 207209). Prior to firing, pottery was engobed, i.e. coated with liquid clay solution. In addition, the surface or fluted decor lines could be polished. Polishing is mainly typical for early Ttipolye pottery. In Tripolye BI period, it was only detected in several isolated samples. Transition from polishing to engobe-coating of pottery is confirmed by the lack of polishers found in Tripolye BI settlements; such devices made of tubular bones are widespread in PrecucuteniTripolye A sites (Fig. 25/9) ( 1953: 115116, Tables 2728; 1957: 215219, Fig. 99, 100; Marinescu-Blcu 1974: 46, 4950, Fig. 15/8; 17/3, 69; 24/5, 1113). During Tripolye BICucuteni period, firing of pottery was mainly performed in oxidizing environment, at the temperatures from 750800C to 1000 ( 1984: 148, Fig. 3). Such temperatures could be reached in pottery furnaces. Remnants of double-chamber furnace structures have been found in Luka-Vrublevetskaya, Hbeti, Drgueni-n Deal la Luterie ( 1953: 127; Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 192193, Fig. 8, 9; rmaru 1977: 76). Well-preserved kiln structures are also known in later periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture development ( 1985: 3738; 1994a: 77; 1998: 68; 2003; 1981: 132, Fig. 96; 1971). E.V.Sayko noted that starting from the end of BI stage, there take place evident and rather quick improvement and sophistication of firing conditions, which can be related to designing and a deeper mastery of specialized kilns ( 1984: 135142). A very important indicator of these changes is the transition from firing in reducing environment (without oxygen access), typical for Early Tripolye pottery ( 1984: 147148), to oxidizing

firing. Differences in firing environment directly affect the coloring of crocks: black and grayish colors are typical for ceramics produced with reducing firing, while oxidizing firing yields reddish and light-yellowish pot tery ( 1940: 311314). The I period also sees changes in firing temperatures: in the most frequently used firing conditions, temperature is risen from 600800C to 8001000 ( 1984: Table 3). Apparently, the change of firing environment and the rise of firing temperature are closely related: extension of the range of firing temperatures allowed for the transition towards oxidizing firing. Changes in firing conditions could be caused by appearance of fundamentally new knowledge on thermal processes in Tripolye environment; such knowledge would not only be used in pottery, but also in metal manufacturing. Such new technologies propagated unevenly. Some sites, such as Hbeti, provide materials wherein articles produced using different firing technologies correspond to ware articles featuring different types of decor. Painted pottery is fired up to red and orange tints, while reliefdecorated ceramics mostly is of darker colors (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 595600, Table 23). Reducing firing is also typical for pottery from Eastern Tripolye sites, where Early Tripolye traditions of relief decorations are preserved throughout Tripolye BI period. This situation is detected e.g. in ceramic assemblages of Southern Bug settlements of Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I, where imported painted pottery of Hbeti aspect was fired in oxidizing environment. Borisovka pottery is also dark-colored, as well as the relief-decorated ware from Darabany I site located in Dniester Lands. Spread of mono- and polychromatic painted decors became an important innovation in the beginning of Middle TripolyeCucuteni period. Researches carried out in Physical and Chemical Methods Laboratory of State Institute of Conservation (GosNIIR) revealed that painting could be applied after firing ( etb al. 1995; et al. 1999; Palaguta 2002). In 199293, 80 samples from 17 Tripolye settlements were studied (8 of them belonging to BI stage). Chemical analyses demonstrated the presence of organic bindings based on proteins and carbohydrates in paint formulae; during high-temperature firing these components would inevitably burn out. Such bindings are not detected in samples that underwent secondary firing in dwelling fires. Besides, in such articles, changes of colors due to high temperatures are noticeable: paints would become lighter or, inversely, darker.

Color of pottery can change in secondary firing, e.g. in conflagration of dwellings. This usually produces irregularly shaped spots; joint fragments in this case may also be of different colors. They are clearly distinguishable from the more uniform furnace firing. Secondary firing often results in differences between pottery found in occupational layers and that from burned-down dwellings. For instance, in Tripolye A Timkovo settlement, the occupational layer pottery is dark-colored, burned in a reducing environment. On the other hand, fragments found in dwellings and bearing traces of secondary firing in an oxidizing environment have an orange-red tint ( et al. 1989: 15).


 21

This conclusion calls for a revision of the previously formulated hypothesis of a drastic change in decoration technology that supposedly took place when polychromatic painting was introduced. According to a widespread opinion, this painting, unlike the painting of relief decors, was applied prior to firing. However, the results of GosNIIR analyses suggest that such fundamental technological differences did not exist: all types of painting were applied after firing. Differences in quality of painting mostly depend on pottery preservation degrees in layers of different settlements, rather than on the technologies used at the time. Nevertheless, the use of a milder secondary firing for paint fixation cannot be ruled out. Besides, vessels could be painted again after firing ( 1967: 142144). Technology of paint preparation and application of painted decors seems to be fairly sophisticated. The following dyestuffs were used: red pigment based on ferric oxides and hydroxides (Fe2O3, hematite, or red ochre); white pigment made of kaolin clays (the calcium silicate, CaSiO2, component of these paints could also be produced in paint firing, from calcium carbonate CaCO3); and black pigment including compounds based on ferric and manganese oxides ( et al. 1999; Ellis 1984: 119120, Fig. 4146, Table 19; 1931: 1112). Paint preparation included firing (ferrous red-colored pigments were fired) and powdering. Paints and priming were composed based on organic bindings, proteins or vegetable juices (carbohydrates and lipids). Decor would be additionally coated with a protective layer of wax or a resin-based varnish, which both preserved the painting and improved the vessel moisture resistance ( et al. 1999). Paints were applied onto vessel surface using a brush. In some cases, the sequence of application of different paints can be traced very distinctly. In trichromatic decors of North-Moldavian sites (Cuconetii Vechi I, Trueti I, Drua I, etc.), a layer of red paints was most frequently applied first to make the decoration field. After that, white strips were painted, and bordering black lines were applied. Thus, the initial decoration was negative (i.e. the decoration field, rather than decor-forming strips, was painted). This method of paint application is related to the reversibility of Tripolye decors. This is a principle of composition where either the decoration strips or background areas can be perceived as decorative figures (see 1948; 1981: 136). Alternative methods of painting application existed in subsequent Tripolye-Cucuteni periods. In pottery found in Rakovec settlement belonging to Tripolye BII period, T.A.Popova distinguishes the preliminary drawing of decoration outlines with a subsequent filling with paint ( 1975: 5657). In Tripolye BIII samples, one can observe decoration marking with black dots that were applied before the rest of the decor; similar marking of decorations is found in Chinese Neolithic vessels ( 1981).

Organization of pottery industry makes an important aspect of ceramic studies, which allows proceeding from exploring ancient pottery technologies towards considering the cultural and historical role of pottery. Manufacturing of pottery articles discovered in Tripolye settlements required the craftsmen to possess a fairly high level of qualification. Ware represented in collections of Tripolye ICucuteni sites could be manufactured by professional masters who applied a wide range of sophisticated technological methods. Series of similar standardized products found in sites materials also indicate a sufficiently high degree of industrial specialization. Discovery of several rather large-sized specialized pottery workshops and entire pottery production complexes in Tripolye settlements, such as Zhvanets complex that consisted of seven pottery kilns ( 1971; 1994: 8384), suggested that Tripolye potters could not only manufacture ware for intra-communal consumption. There arose a possibility of existence, during Tripolye BIICI period, of pottery centers that could produce ware for export exchange ( 1988: 67; 1988: 28). However, when considering the earlier Tripolye BICucuteni period, one most probably deals with a communal craft characterized by appearance of professional craftsmen who supplied the demand of their respective communities ( et al. 1988: 172173). Workshop houses with remnants of pottery furnaces were found in Hbeti (buildings No. 910). They are located at the edge of the settlement, lower than other buildings, on the slope facing the creek (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 5763, 193, pl. II, XVIIIXIX). Carrying pottery production outside the settlement was probably caused by fire safety concerns, as well as by the aim of getting it closer to water sources. Similar workshop houses are also known in later periods: in Veselyj Kut, Costeti IX, and Varvaruca VIII ( 1994; 1981). The problem of existence and forms of inter-communal exchanges in Tripolye-Cucuteni have not yet been

sufficiently explored. During Tripolye BICucuteni period, import of pottery is comparatively rare. Therefore, imported objects can be considered not only as products of commerce or exchanges. Another plausible explanation is that such items could travel along with people, e.g. as a result of marriage contracts. This point of view may also be used to consider the so-called Cucuteni C ware, containing shell admixtures in clay mixture and manufactured in Tripolye settlements by representatives of a different cultural environment (see Section 7.3), as well as imported painted vessels found in ceramic assemblages of Eastern Tripolye sites ( 2003: 115117). The most difficult task lies in identifying imported pottery and separating it from locally produced imitations. The difference is that imported items usually differ in a whole range of technological methods, while imitations only copy their external attributes, being manufactured according to local traditions. Such an imitation is e.g. represented by the fluted pear-shaped vessel from Jura settlements. It features a rim near the bottom that imitates a base tray, typical in local ware but lacking in North-Moldavian analogs imitated by this vessel (Fig. 72/9). The comparatively small amount of obviously imported articles indicates that pottery industry of early developed Tripolye culture was mainly defined by a single settlement or a group of neighboring settlements. They mark a microgroup, or a local-chronological type of sites. Traditions of ceramic ware production in Tripolye environment seem to be rather stable. Throughout the entire area, a common set of ware is preserved, any differences only concerning minor details. Modeling techniques based on clay-band technology are also rather similar. Innovations in pottery production of Tripolye BICucuteni period take the form of the appearing painted ceramics, widely spread in the Western part of the culture area. Changes in vessel firing conditions, as well as the appearance of items manufactured using the round-bottom technique, are probably related to these innovations.

 22

CHAPTER 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIPOLYE BICUCUTENI SITES

4.1. North-Moldavian settlements

The Tripolye-Cucuteni area is unevenly explored. That is why, a periodization approach based on revealing the relative chronological sequence of sites within a limited, sufficiently well-studied territory appears to be the most promising. Up to this day, the most complete data have been acquired on Northern Moldavia and adjacent territories of Right-Bank Ukraine and Middle Dniester Lands. In addition to T.S.Passeks expedition that performed prospecting and excavations of Polivanov Yar settlement in 1950s, researches carried out by V.I.Marchevici, K.K.Chernysh, T. A.Popova, N.V.Ryndina, V.Ya.Sorokin, and V.M.Bikbaev resulted in exploration of more than ten other settlements. Excavations were carried out in Cuconetii Vechi I, Duruitoarea Nou I, Duruitoarea Vechi, Drua I, Putineti II and III, and Ttruca Nou III. Romanian sites located at the left bank of Middle Pruth river, such as Trueti, Drgueni, and Mitoc, studied by M.PetrescuDymbovica, A.Crimaru, S.Marinescu-Blcu, and D.Popovici, adjoin the above group both territorially and by main characteristics of their material. Several site groups or microgroups each including several settlements with similar materials, located immediately adjacent to each others, can be distinguished within this region. Results of studies of settlements included in such groups can be taken as references to be used in further comparison of ceramic assemblages both within neighboring territories and in the entire area of the culture. , 1976). One comparatively ill-preserved surface dwelling has been explored in Duruitoarea Vechi I settlement (, 1974). In Varatic VI and Varatic XII, only hoisted material is known (V.M.Bikbaevs prospecting). All above settlements make a compact group located in the valleys of Ciugur river and its tributary, the Ciugurec creek. Distances between neighboring sites of the group do not exceed 3km, but topographical environments of different sites vary. Drua I settlement is located on a cape, at a high toltre range in the bend of Ciugurec creek, approximately 30m above the water level in the creek. Duruitoarea Vechi I settlement is also located at an elevated plateau. Duruitoarea Nou I and Varatic VI are at the first terrace above the flood-plane of Ciugur river, and the Varatic XII settlement is similarly located at Pruth bank, near the mouth of Ciugur river (Fig. 4). Drua I is one of the best-studied Tripolye ICucuteni sites of Northern Moldavia. Registration of construction debris and finds discovered during excavation allowed, in addition to determining some structural details of Tripolye platforms, also tracking a number of specific features of distribution of finds in the layer ( 1988; , 1990; 1994). Attributing the settlement to the end of Tripolye I period, or the Cucuteni 4 phase, was already suggested in preliminary publications ( 1984; 1985; 1986); the ceramic assemblage of the site was subject of a special paper by the author ( 1995). The site area is about 2ha. During three field work seasons, three clay platforms (No.1, 2, and 3) have been excavated completely, and two more platforms (No.4 and 5) have been partially excavated. The total excavated area amounts to 498 sq.m. Excavated buildings had longitudinal axes oriented along the West-East line and formed two groups (No.12 and No.35). Sizes of fully explored platforms are respectively 86m, 10.410.7m, and 85m. Their remnants bear traces of a fire. The buildings were probably destroyed simultaneously: this is also confirmed by the lack of significant differences in implements. The layer-wise deposition of rolled coatings of ceilings and tabulated coatings of floors, as well as the presence of interior elements and broken vessels both below and above the ceiling layer, suggest that buildings were two-storied (, 1990: 109111). The main bulk of pottery is found in dwellings, concentrated within the ground-floor utility zones, near pits and clay daises. Ceramic assemblages of excavated platforms are of rather large volumes. Sets of whole and restorable forms contain up to 40 vessels each in dwellings 1 and 2, and  23

4.1.1. Ciugur river site group

Tripolye BI settlements located in Northern Moldavia have been so far explored to the greatest extent. As a result of works executed in the construction area of Costeti hydroelectric power plant, a group of sites found in Ciugur river valley and adjacent regions of Middle Pruth area was studied. This region comprises the settlements of Duruitoarea Nou I (Ivanovka, excavated by K.K.Chernysh in 19741975), Duruitoarea Vechi (excavated by V.I.Marchevici in 1973), and Drua I (excavated in 1982 1984 by the Tripolye expedition of Archaeological Department of Moscow State University lead by N.V.Ryndina). V.I.Marchevici discovered the location of Drua VI in the same region (Sorochin 1997: 71), and V.M.Bikbaev later located settlements of Varatic XII and Varatic VI, being washed out by waters of Costeti reservoir (see Fig. 4). Degree of exploration of different settlements varies. In Drua I, three platform dwellings have been excavated completely, and two more partially ( 1984; 1985; 1986). Three platforms have been excavated in Duruitoarea Nou I ( 1975b; , 1975;

up to 20 in dwelling 3. However, the number of fragmented articles is an order of magnitude higher: the number of found rims suggests that some 350 vessels are represented in dwelling 2, above 200 vessels in dwelling 1, and some 200 more within the excavation site III (which comprises platform 3 and partially excavated platforms 4 and 5). In all probability, sets of whole forms characterize the functional complexes of buildings by the moment when they were abandoned (number of vessels here may be slightly higher than registered: not all vessels could be restored), and broken pottery characterizes the layer as a whole. We did not take into account the compositions of forming mixtures when studying the assemblage, since they are often identical in both decorated and undecorated vessels. All pottery, except the fragments that bear traces of secondary firing, was fired in oxidizing environment, which colored it with various shades of light-yellow and pinkish-brown. Bowls make one the most largely represented form (there are above 200 such articles including fragments, see Fig. 16). Diameters of bowl rims range from 1012 to 40cm, bowl heights are from 6 to 20cm. Simple truncated-cone-shaped bowls are the most frequent to be found (Fig. 29/113; 33/4). They were typically manufactured according to the flat-bottom tradition (Fig. 29/67; 33/4). Their share in dwelling assemblages amounts to 2327% (Fig. 9, 10, 11). Isolated hemispherical bowls with inverted edges and cylinder-conic bowls (Fig. 33/6) are also present among the site materials. Some 20 bowls have high truncatedcone-shaped pedestals (Fig. 29/1418; 33/5) that either were attached to bowl preforms during models or served as a basis for forming bowl walls. Pear-shaped vessels are of rather large sizes: 30 to 5070cm in diameter and 2527 to 4055cm high (Fig. 31/13; 30/56). The flat-bottom manufacturing tradition is detected in all cases. The bottom part of a vessel might be highlighted with a slight bend of the profile line and is marked with an elongated-ellipse pattern that is typical for bowls (Fig. 31/3). The total number of pear-shaped vessels in the collection amounts to 40 items. This shape is standard and is represented by stable series found in all excavated dwellings (up to 57% of vessels).

Number of vessels of each specific shape and the degree of fragmentation of articles are directly affected by the nature of objects under consideration (see 1999b). In Drua I settlement, the predominant fragmented forms are bowls (about 25%), beakers (some 1520%), and kitchenware (10 to 15%) (Tables 9, 10, 11). These types represent the most intensively used everyday ware, often to be broken and regularly requiring replacement. Thus, ceramic assemblages of buildings reflect general characteristics of the entire occupation layer of the settlement, pottery found in these assemblages mostly having been accumulated during the whole period of settlement existence.  Hereinafter, we skip the characteristics of shell-tempered Cucuteni C ware that reflects influences of a foreign culture. See a detailed discussion of this type of pottery in Section 7.3 below. It is present in assemblages of all sites of the region under consideration that belong to Cucuteni 4 phase.


 24

Specificity of vessels with spherical and sphero-conical bodies, similar in shape to pear-shaped vessels (Fig. 34/14, 89; 35/1314), lies in more or less distinct manifestation of round-bottom manufacturing tradition in some cases. Sizes of these vessels are smaller than those of pear-shaped vessels: the largest of reconstructed items is about 34cm in diameter and slightly more than 30cm high (the edge of the base tray being broken). Average vessel is 1520cm in diameter and 1318cm high. Share of spherical vessels in dwelling assemblages amounts to 810% (more than 70 item in total). Twotiered vessels are also present in the assemblage (Fig. 31/4). Their content in dwellings does not exceed 1.5% (less than 10 items). In Drua I, several varieties of lids have been found (about 60 items in total). The most frequently encountered lids are those with hemispherical bodies and disc-shaped knobs, i.e. so-called bell-shaped lids (Fig. 30/1, 34). One of the found lids features a disc-shaped knob and a body composed of two parts: a hemisphere and a truncated cone (Fig. 30/2). This variety could be the prototype of the former variant, where the truncated-cone part is reduced. Isolated occurrences have also been found of hemispherical lids of bowl-like shapes, lids with mushroom-shaped knobs, and bell-shaped lids with hemispherical bodies and trumpet-shaped rims (Fig. 34/3, 7). Jugs and pots were manufactured according to the flat-bottom tradition; they differ in proportions of necks and rims (Fig. 30/10, 11; 33/3). Their number in the collection is not great (about 30 pots and 15 jugs, which corresponds to 36% of the total amount of assemblages of the buildings). Beakers represent the second largest (after the bowls) quantity in Drua I collections: they amount to some 150 items or 1316% of all ware. The following shapes are found in the assemblage: beakers with a smooth S-shaped profile line (Fig. 35/4), those with a spherical body and a slightly exverted rim (no neck; Fig. 35/6), and those with a cylindrical neck and a small exverted rim (Fig. 32; 30/79, 12). Beaker sizes are smaller than with other vessels: they are 815cm high and up to 14cm in diameter. The round-bottom manufacturing tradition is generally typical for them, although some beakers could have been produced based on small clay cakes, which is a signature of the flat-bottom tradition. However, in this case, too, the edge of the bottom is made round during scraping. Anthropomorphic vessels are close to beakers in shape (Fig. 7/9). Monocular and binocular items are about 60; they amount to 510% of ware in assemblages of the buildings (Fig. 33/1, 2). Cauldrons and pithoi are typically large-sized: rim diameter of some items is as large as 50cm, and the walls are 0.71.5cm thick (Fig. 7/12, 13). There are above 100 (1015%) such items in Drua I. The series of miniature vessels copies the shapes of normal-size items. It is represented by bowls, pedestaled bowls, beakers, lids, and even two-tiered vessels (Fig. 36/110). Within an assemblage, vessels can be grouped according to their functional attributes or by manufacturing methods used in the framework of two fundamentally different

traditions: round-bottom (vessels with spherical or sphero-conical bodies and most beakers) or flat-bottom (most other forms) ( 1995: Fig. 3/I, II). Another distinguishable category is represented by vessels made to be used with lids (pear-shaped as well as spherical-bodied and two-tiered), vessels with a drain featuring exverted, i.e. bend towards outside, rims (jugs, pots and beakers), bowls, lids, etc. (on this grouping method, see 1988: 521). Respective sizes of these groups apparently reflect the specific purpose of household assemblages of dwellings. Differences in modeling techniques used for vessels to be used with rims are highlighted by different sizes of larger pear-shaped vessels and smaller spherical ones (that might reflect their different functions). Two-tiered vessels represent a hybrid form. Above 80% of Drua pottery is decorated; however, paint is very ill-preserved in most painted vessels. Classification and description of decorative patterns took into account both application technique and specific features of color design of strips and background, as well as variations of decoration compositions. Most of the pottery features relief decor of incised lines and flutes. Incised decorations were applied onto a sufficiently wet clay with a stick or a small tubular bone; spaces between incised lines would often be painted in red or, more rarely, in black (Fig. 28/1, 2). Such decorations are found in some 2527% of Drua I ceramics. Flutes were applied with a tool having a wide (0.51 cm) flat working end, a bone or wooden spatula (Fig. 28/ 56; 30; 32/1, 34, etc.). After single or doubled flutes were applied, vessel surfaces were coated with a layer of white engobe paint, and the interstices between the flutes, i.e. the decoration background, were painted with red paint. There also existed a different method of applying decoration, wherein the flutes and the background were painted separately. Fluted decors are present in about 40% of all pottery. This type of decoration is genetically related to incised decor combined with background painting with red paint, which is confirmed by the identical color spectra and by the coexistence of both styles in different items of the same shapes. In the course of the subsequent development, the relief part of decor was abandoned, and the combination of flutes and painting was eventually transformed into the bichromatic red-and-white painting, or the new type bichromy according to Vl.Dumitrescu. Painted decorations of Drua I ceramics differ in color design of their compositions. In addition to a derivative of bichromatic red-and-white painting of relief decorations, which was found in isolated items (Fig. 33/4, 5), three more types of painted decor are represented in Drua I: trichromatic, black-and-white, and drawing with thin white lines over a red background. Trichromatic painting adorns most painted pottery articles. Decorative figures are formed by wide white strips bordered with narrower black lines. Spaces between decorative figures, i.e. the background, are painted red. While this general principle of composition holds, differences are found in design details of decorative strips: a longitudinal red line (nervure) may be present or absent in the middle of a strip, and the background may

be painted uniformly or additionally hatched with narrow black lines (Fig. 29/14; 34/16, 9; 35/23, 58, 15). This differences could possibly reflect the existence of different decorative traditions; however, their relative quantities cannot be determined in Drua I, since the nervure is often washed away. Black-and-white painting was applied with black or dark-brown paint over white priming (engobe). The decor is hatched. Decoration features suggest that this style that we denote as proto- most probably makes a foundation of styles belonging to group that are typical for the final part of Cucuteni Cucuteni 1 period. Such decorations are found in isolated items from Drua (Fig. 35/9, 10, 1214). Several fragments of beakers feature rather specific a decoration: they are painted in thin white lines over red background with a wider black strip (Fig. 35/1). Similar decors were found in Romanian settlement of DrgueniOstrov (rmaru 1977: 3435, Fig. 42/78). Decorative composition correspond to specific techniques of decor application. For instance, the pattern of running S-shaped helices was mostly done in flutes, although such decorations can sometimes be found in painted vessels (Fig. 29/1; 30/1, 36, 11; 31/13; 34/1). Trichromatic painting was used in decors composed of consecutive or overlaying S-shaped helices (Fig. 34/3, 6, 9; 35/5, 7). Simpler compositions of scallops, ellipses, waves, circles, etc. are derived from the helical pattern (Fig. 33/7; 34/2, 5). Pattern of slanted ellipses divided by one or two slanted lines is almost exclusively found in bowls with incised decorations (Fig. 29/67, 9, 11); there is only one case of this decor being made in paints (Fig. 33/4). Simple patterns of vertical, horizontal, and slanted lines are arranged on smaller vessels or on necks and rims of larger ones. Superposition of decorative motifs was detected: the main series of helices is applied over the previous one that plays the role of additional elements of the composition (Fig. 30/4, 6, 10). Cutting of composition with zone-delimiting lines can often be seen that results in appearance of patterns of scallops and volutes based on helices (Fig. 30/5). Several vessels are decorated with meander patterns (Fig. 31/4; 35/2). Several fragments feature zigzagging decorations (Fig. 34/8). Fig. 16 provides a comparison of decors and pottery forms found in Drua I (lids are excluded from the table since they are considered to be related to other vessels). Neglecting rare species, the resulting set is not too large, and differences within series of articles are most probably caused by different skills of individual craftsmen who worked within the framework of the same traditions. The ceramic assemblage of the site is formed by four groups of vessels that are all interrelated to some extent: I. The group of vessels without decorations or with surfaces covered with rough band-wise leveling comprises cauldrons, pithoi, hemispherical vessels and a part of truncated-cone-shaped bowls.
Black or dark-brown painting over white background, engobe, or natural surface (see Dumitrescu 1945: 4950; 1983: 97, Fig. 21/1011).


 25

II. A group related to the previous one comprises truncated-cone-shaped bowls with incised decorations and a part of pedestaled bowls. III. Flat-bottom manufacturing tradition and common-type decorations relate bowls to a group of fluted vessels: pear-shaped ones, jugs, pots, monocular and binocular items, anthropomorphic vessels and some beakers. Connection between those types is due to the fact that, as it was already mentioned, flutes are in most cases derived from incised decor. This is confirmed by a small series of pear-shaped vessels and jugs with incised positive and negative decorations (Fig. 31/23) that are remnants of an earlier tradition. IV. The group of painted vessels is dominated by those with spherical or sphero-conical bodies, items with polychromatic painting prevailing. These vessels are related to round-bottom manufacturing tradition. The group of painted ware also includes two-tiered vessels and some beakers (proportion of painted and fluted beakers in different dwellings varies from 1:4 to 1:2). V. Yet another group is formed by items with bichromatic painting; it only comprises one binocular object and a truncated-cone-shaped bowl. These are typologically later articles that represent a continuation of development of vessels with fluted decorations painted with red and white paints. Thus, the structure of Drua I assemblage reflects a coexistence of two interrelated traditions of ceramic ware manufacturing. One of them involves the use of relief decorations and the manufacturing of vessel bottoms based on flat cake-shaped preforms (the flat-bottom tradition). Its existence can be traced since PrecucuteniTripolye culture. The other tradition is based on manufacturing the bottom part of a vessel out of a hemispherical preform that is subsequently flatted or added a modeled base-tray (the round-bottom tradition); it is related to painted pottery. One can suppose that this distinction within a single assemblage reflects the initial presence of two groups of bearers of different pottery traditions that provided a base for the population of the settlement. These were the substrate tradition and that of painted pottery. Interrelations between both traditions indicated that their coexistence was of a fairly long date by the moment of founding of the settlement. Ceramic finds from Duruitoarea Nou I (Ivanovka) are chronologically close to the materials of Drua I. During the two field-work seasons of 19741975, 654 sq.m. of occupational layer was uncovered in five digs, and three clay platform dwellings were explored. Excavations were carried out in various parts of the settlement. In Dig I located at Ciugur river bank, small shallow pits used in economical activities were found to be situated along the bank, and an ashy spot of an open hearth; ceramic material from this dig is scarce. In Dig II, a comparatively small (85m) clay platform was unThese materials are kept in the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography of Archeology and Ancient History Institute of Moldavian Academy of Sciences, Chiinu. I would like to thank K.K.Chernysh who offered me an opportunity to use her field logs, diagrams and pottery drawings.


 26

covered ( 1974: 38). Remnants of surface Dwelling 3 (Dig V) were ill-preserved and affected by later digging; that is why it was difficult to define assemblages within this dwelling (, 1975: 35). The best-preserved building, 12.57m clay Dwelling 2, was explored in the central part of the settlement (Dig IV). A majority of finds were located on the floor of the building and in two household pits after the remnants of the floor were disassembled ( 1974: 9). Thus, the ceramic material from this building forms a united assemblage. It is of a comparatively small amount: 494 ceramic fragments in total. Among other items, 10 broken vessels were discovered in Pit 1, and 2 vessels were found in Pit 2. General characteristics of Duruitoarea Nou I ceramic assemblage correspond to those of Drua I pottery as described above. In particular, the sets of ware forms are nearly identical; pottery decorations are similar, too (see Fig. 17). Incised decorations are only found in bowls (Fig. 37/14). Items with fluted decors combine with bichromatic red-and-white painting are numerous. Similarly to Drua, those are pear-shaped vessels and their lids, pots, beakers, anthropomorphic vessels, and some of the pedestaled bowls (Fig. 37/56, 89). Polychromatic tricolor painting and that in thin hatched dark-brown lines area found both in spherical-bodied and two-tiered vessels and in a part of the beakers (Fig. 39/3, 10). Nevertheless, rather important differences are revealed that indicate a later, with respect to Drua I, age of this site. First of all, one notes the presence of a fairly large group of ware with bichromatic red-and-white painting, but without flutes. While this type of painting was only found in three Drua vessels (a truncated-cone-shaped bowl, a pedestaled bowl, and a binocular item), in Duruitoarea Nou, this style of decoration is used for nearly the entire set of ware that is ornate with flutes in Drua. This set does not only comprise bowls and binocular objects (Fig. 17), but also jugs, beakers, pots, a monocular item, and pear-shaped vessels (Fig. 38/13, 67; 86/1). Vessels with bichromatic painting also constitute most of the finds in Pit 1 from Dwelling 2, which is a closed assemblage. Out of 10 articles, only a fragment of a binocular object is decorated with flutes, and a spherical vessel and a lid, with polychromatic painting. As it was noted above, bichromatic red-and-white painting typologically belongs to a later time than an analogous decor combined with flutes. The later dating of Duruitoarea Nou I settlements with respect to Drua I is indicated by the larger proportion of bichromatic vessels, as well as by the use of bichromatic decor in adorning a wider variety of item forms (Fig. 17). On the other hand, Duruitoarea Nou lacks the earlier type of pear-shaped vessels with incised decorations such as found in Drua. Other articles from Duruitoarea Nou present a number of features allowing to establish a later date of this settlement with respect to Drua I. Thus, a beaker from Dwelling 3 is decorated with dark-brown painting over light-colored background, in style belonging to group (Fig. 39/8). A similar pattern consisting of circles inscribed in diamonds is also present in a spherical vessel from Solonceni II2 settlement belonging to the period Cucuteni

 (Fig. 74/6). However, in Duruitoarea Nou, it is also done in polychromatic style (Fig. 39/3). Zigzagging patterns (Fig. 39/1) are applied with dark-brown paint over dark-brown horizontal strips that were used for marking. They also belong to a later, simplified, type with respect to those coming from Drua I (Fig. 34/8). The settlement of Duruitoarea Vechi is locates at the plateau cape, about 1.5km to the South from Duruitoarea Nou I (see Fig. 6) ( 1964: 262; 1973a: 66; 1973b: 15). In 1973, prospect digging was carried out in the settlement, and a surface dwelling 176.5m in size was uncovered (, 1974: 424). Unfortunately, V.I.Marchevicis report ( 1973b: 1516) fails to provide any clear characteristics of this building. The ceramic assemblage of Duruitoarea Vechi is generally close to the materials from Duruitoarea Nou I. Spherical and two-tiered vessels are covered with polychromatic painting (Fig. 41/1, 6; 42/4, 5). Incised-line decoration is mostly found in bowls. Despite the presence of items decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting (Fig. 42/6), there also is a fairly large number of vessels with bichromatic decor. Bichromatic painting covers several spherical vessels (Fig. 41/45) that are decorated with trichromatic or dark-brown hatched painting in Drua I and Duruitoarea Nou I. Asymmetry of decoration composition in one of these vessels (Fig. 41/4) also indicates it to be of typologically later kind. Some articles are decorated with painting that is close to the styles of Cucuteni period, analogous to that discovered in vessels from Solonceni II2 and TraianDealul Fntnilor III ( 1965: Fig. 20/4; Dumitrescu 1945: pl. IX/8, XVIII/7, 12, 13). Decor of one of the lids (Fig. 42/3) is also close to -group styles. However, this does not allow for attributing the site to Cucuteni period; besides, analogies of this decor are also represented in some ware from Izvoare II, a settlement undoubtedly belonging to Cucuteni period (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 161; 180). The fragment of cylinder-conical bowl with black (dark-brown) painting over light-colored engobe, as well as the wall fragment of another vessel with similar painting (Fig. 42/78), has rather late an aspect. However, one should note that, judging by certain pottery fragments present in the collection, a Late Tripolye period layer, unmentioned in reports and preliminary publications, existed in Duruitoarea Vechi. Therefore, the site dating requires to be refined. Chronological differences between this site materials from those of Duruitoarea Nou were already noted by K.K.Chernysh ( 1974: 2122). Decoration of certain articles favors the hypothesis that the settlement of Duruitoarea Vechi existed later than other sites comprised in the microgoup under consideration.

Settlements of Varatic VI and XII that also belong to the group are only known by prospective studies. Varatic VI settlement us situated at the first terrace above the flood-plain of the right bank of river Ciugur near its confluence with Ciugurec creek (Fig. 4). According to V.M.Bikbaevs communication, the site material is close to that described above. Pottery from Varatic XII settlement located at the left bank of Pruth river, some 2km away from Duruitoarea Nou I, is analogous to the materials from this site (Fig. 40). The chronological proximity of both settlements is suggested by a relative abundance of bichromatic painting in different forms of vessels (jugs, a binocular object, pear-shaped vessels, etc.) Drua VI settlement with its feebly marked occupation layer, situated on a butte in Ciugurec valley about 1km away from Drua I site, also belong to the period Cucuteni (Sorochin 1997: 71). All described sites are attributed to the end of Tripolye I period, or, according to Vl.Dumitrescus classification, Cucuteni 4 phase. Based on studies of the site group located in Ciugur river valley, the order of its colonization can also be reconstructed. The earliest of these settlements is Drua I situated at the upper flow of Ciugurec creek. The settlement location on an easily defended rocky cape is apparently also related to the early time of colonization of the micro-region. The possibility of attacks against the settlement is indicated by numerous arrow-heads (above 100 of which are found in the site) that are mostly located at the borders of dwellings, predominantly at the field side of the cape (, 1990: 110 111). Further development of the territory proceeded along the valley of Ciugur river. Subsequent settlements are not only situated on heights (like Duruitoarea Vechi and Drua VI), but also occupy the lower terrace above the floodplains of Ciugur and Pruth river valleys (Duruitoarea Nou I, Varatic VI and XII), which could be caused by climatic changes. Ciugur valley settlements are characterized in that they feature similar ceramic assemblages. The cores of these sets are formed pottery with fluted decorations combined with painting in red and white, which progressively transforms into bichromatic painting without flutes. It is this style that was used to decorate the main types of ware: pear-shaped vessels and their lids, jugs, pots, anthropomorphic vessels, most bowls and beakers, as well as binocular and monocular articles. All sites of the group present ceramic assemblages wherein incised decoThe author wishes to thank V.M.Bikbaev for having offered the results of his prospecting to be used in the present work.  Presence of individual vessels decorated with comparatively late-style painting (e.g. in group style) in some of these settlements (Duruitoarea Nou I, Duruitoarea Vechi) does not mean that these sites should be considered in the framework of the next Cucuteni stage. Manifestation of later features is not in this case consistent; late articles are isolated. An example of site belonging to early Cucuteni period can be found in DrgnetiValea Ungureanului settlement explored by the author, where styles of groups , and that are typical for this period are represented to a full extent. This site also features bichromatic pottery that indicates that traditions of Tripolye BICucuteni A were preserved ( 1997a; Palaguta 1998b).


Analogies to this decor also exist in Trueti. A.Niu provides a number of examples of rhombic compositions found in pottery from both Cucuteni (Trueti, Hbeti, Frumuica, Cucuteni) and Vina-Turdas culture settlements, as well as in various groups of Linear-band ceramics culture (Niu 1969).


 27

rations are preserved in truncated-cone-shaped bowls without any significant changes. The so-called kitchenware group (comprising cauldrons and pithoi) is also fairly stable. The main development trend of relief decor in pottery from these sites consists of the evolution of fluted decorations combined with painting in red and white towards bichromatic painting, the amount of the latter growing larger in later sites. What they have in common is the identity of compositions, the same color spectrum, and their presence in the same forms of vessels. Origin of fluted decorations is related to incised decor, as suggested by a series of correspondences found in Drua I ceramic assemblage. Quantitative proportions of relief (incised and fluted) decorations and the related bichromatic painting allows reconstructing the relative chronology of sites within the microgroup. Coexistence of articles belonging to earlier and later types within the same assemblages indicates a minimal chronological gap between them. Therefore, it is quite possible that some of the sites of the group could partially exist synchronously. Painted ceramics is, to an extent, in a dependent position. This does not only concern the smaller amount of such items (10 to 20% of the assemblage total). Painted vessels, such as two-tiered and spherical articles and beakers, act as a sort of functional duplicates of items decorated with flutes and bichromatic painting. For instance, two-tiered and spherical vessels correspond to pear-shaped ones, and painted beakers only make a part of the total assembly of articles dominated by analogous fluted and bichromatic items of similar shapes and sizes. The poor integrity of paints does not always allow clearly revealing the development of painted decorations; however, individual items can also be used as chronological markers. Materials of these sites provide a basic chronological column for Late Cucuteni A (A4 according to Vl.Dumitrescu) settlements in Northern Moldavia. One can even put forward an approximate estimation of length of Cucuteni 4 phase, which comprises three or four settlements that existed consequently. Besides, studies of sites in Ciugur river valley allows supposing that all of them were left by the same population group that would periodically transfer the settlement within the borders of a small territory, which suggests that a mobile settling system existed in this part of Tripolye-Cucuteni period ( 2000).

4.1.2. Drua-Drgueni type settlements in Middle Pruth and Rut river basins

The range of the closest analogs to the sites described above is fairly wide. First of all, one should mention the two settlements located in the valley of Podriga river, a left-hand tributary of river Baeu (which, in its turn, is a right-hand tributary of river Pruth). These sites, DrgueniOstrov and Drgueni-n Deal la Lutrie, are situated near the village of Drgueni in Botoani County in NorthEastern Romania. They also belong to the final phase of Cucuteni stage and make a compact group being located about 2km away from each other (Crmaru 1977: 1519, Fig. 1). Drgueni pottery collection features a significant number of whole and reconstructed vessel forms. Unfortunately, the finds cannot be examined in the

respective contexts of buildings or layers: none of the available publications provide a sufficiently clear description or diagrams of any of explored building structures. Ceramic assemblages of both settlements are largely alike to each other. Incised decoration is mostly used in bowls; in some cases, it is combined with painting the interstices between incised lines with red and black paints (Crmaru 1977: 3031, Fig. 18/24, 7, 19/19; 45/12, 4). Flutes combined with bichromatic painting decorates jugs, pots, some beakers and bowls, monocular objects, and most anthropomorphic vessels and binocular items (Crmaru 1977: 33 et seq.) Out of reconstructed articles, fluted decor is only found in one pear-shaped vessel with a base-tray. However, some of the present lids (Crmaru 1977: Fig. 27/5, 32/5, 89) suggest that ceramic assemblages of the settlements comprised pear-shaped vessels with both fluted and incised decorations. A number of articles with bichromatic painting are also present (Crmaru 1977: Fig. 28/12; 34/17, 9; 40/6). The range of painted vessels with lids is wide and varied: they are spherical (with or without base-trays) or two-tiered (Crmaru 1977: 3740, 4750, Fig. 26/15, 78; 27/14; Fig. 3031). Similarly to some of the beakers (Crmaru 1977: Fig. 21/5, 710; 22/57, 10; 23/12), they are decorated with polychromatic painting, wherein white strips are in most cases supplied with longitudinal nervure lines or black (dark-brown) hatched painting over a white engobe background (proto- style). The two styles coexist in two-tiered vessels. Compositions of polychromatic decors of Drgueni pottery are similar to those found in Drua I. Various types of helices and meanders prevail. Zigzagging patterns done in poly- or monochromatic technique (in black paint over a white background) indicate evolution from more complex variants towards simpler ones (Crmaru 1977: 8586, Fig. 47). Compositions of hatched dark-brown painting are also rather widely varied (Crmaru 1977: 86, Fig. 4851). Quantitative proportions of different groups of vessels in Drgueni is approximately the same as in the complexes of other North-Moldavian sites. Ware with fluted decorations combined with bichromatic painting is predominant, amounting up to 40% (Fig. 45) (Crmaru 1977: 32, 79). According to Vl.Dumitrescus calculations, materials from Pit 14 of Drgueni-Ostrov settlement are stand out for a larger amount of painted pottery (Dumitrescu 1973: 194; Dumitrescu 1974b: 39); however, such differences within a single settlement are quite admissible. Their interpretation requires a more detailed processing and a more thorough comparison of ceramic assemblages of individual buildings. Vl.Dumitrescu believes that Drgueni-Ostrov settlement is somewhat later than that of Drgueni-n Deal la Lutrie, since its ceramic assemblages includes vessels that are typical for the subsequent Cucuteni 1 period (DuThis is probably the reason why the description of collections provided in A.Crimarus book considers pottery from both Drgueni settlements collectively.  Decoration of one of these vessels additionally comprises an area done in incised technique, thus combining three different styles.

 28

mitrescu 1973; Dumitrescu 1974b; Crmaru 1977: 83). The same opinion on a transitive nature of some Drgueni materials is held by S.Marinescu-Blcu (Marinescu-Blcu 1994). A group of sites (or a part of such group) belonging to the same period of Cucuteni 4 is constituted by settlements Putineti II and III excavated by V.Ya.Sorochin in 19891991 ( 1997b; Sorochin 2002). Putineti II settlement is situated at the lower terrace above the flood-plain of the left bank of river Rut, near the place where Cubolta river flows into it. The settlement comprises multiple layers; the sub-surface Dwelling 1 (semi-dugout) belongs to Tripolye BI period. The nature of its ceramic materials fairly well corresponds to NorthMoldavian sites as described above. A significantly large group of Putineti II pottery is constituted by ceramics with fluted decorations; there is also a large amount of ware decorated with incised lines (Fig. 46). The represented forms are beakers, lids, pear-shaped vessels, bowls, etc. Pottery with polychromatic painting is scarce and represented in fragments of beakers and spherical vessels. Putineti III settlement is situated at the right bank of Cubolta river, some 5km away from the preceding site. During three field-work seasons, remnants of 7 buildings, both surface and sub-surface, were uncovered. Ceramic assemblages of explored structures differ in percentage proportions of different types of decorations. Materials from Dwellings 57 (that form a single row of a platform) and the sub-surface Dwelling 4 feature the predominance of relief-decorated pottery as is usual for this type of sites. As for Dwellings 2 and 3 (a platform and a sub-surface structure), they contain a much (almost three to four times) higher amount of painted ware (Fig. 47). A sheer ratio of percentages of main decoration types, without detailed processing of materials from each of the buildings, is not sufficient to form an opinion on the nature of these differences, although they may well be chronological ones. In particular, the question of presence and amount of bichromatic pottery, which is the crucial point in reconstruction of chronology of North-Moldavian sites, remains unresolved. Published papers and reports allow concluding that generally, Putineti III ceramics corresponds to the materials obtained from such North-Moldavian sites as Drua I and Duruitoarea Nou I. An assemblage belonging to the later development stage of North-Moldavian sites of Tripolye BI period was studied by V.A.Marchevici. 23 whole and reconstructed vessels were discovered in a household pit excavated in Brnzeni IV settlement (Fig. 14, 18) ( 1981b:
For instance, the form of bowls with a cylindrical rim and a truncated-cone-shaped lower part is typical for Cucuteni period (Dumitrescu 1974b: 39; Crmaru 1977: 4647). One of the beakers is decorated in 2 style (Dumitrescu 1974b: 4041, Fig. 1/4). According to Romanian scholars, decorations of two beakers from Drgueni-Ostrov settlement featuring painting in thin white lines over red background also belong to a substantially later type (Crmaru 1977: 3435, Fig. 42/78). However, this rare variety of painting is analogous to the decoration of a beaker fragment from Drua (Fig. 17/7), which suggests a chronological proximity between them.


 29

104117, Tables IIII). This set features obvious differences from characteristics of the occupation layer and comprises nearly all main types of ware without quantitative predominance of any specific form (Fig. 14). Location of these finds in a single pit allows assuming them to be synchronous. However, polychromous pottery that existed at the time lacks in the assemblage of the pit, probably due to the set incompleteness. Four groups of vessels are represented in Brnzeni IV assemblage. Two of them, a pithos and a cauldron with rough finger-leveled surface, are kitchen vessels (Fig. 44/56). Two morea beaker and a large jugare decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting ( 1981b: Tables II/4, III/8). The most striking part of the collection is formed by 13 items decorated with bichromatic painting. Decor patterns of the jug, the binocular object, the beaker, the two pear-shaped vessels, and the two two-tiered vessels (Fig. 43/2, 4, 68) are bichromatic imitation of patterns that were done in relief technique in other sites (e.g. in Drua). In two-tiered vessels, both lower and upper decoration zones are decorated with bichromatic painting. The painting is negative: spaces between decorative figures are painted over white engobe background. The main motif is composed of running multi-coil S-shaped helices, added with cut fragments of smallersized helices in the interstices of the pattern dominant. The typologically late nature of these patterns is indicated by a noticeable cutting of main compositions with lines delimiting decorations zones (Fig. 43/7, 8), as well as by the transformation of compositions from running helices to volutes, as found in the jug and one of the pearshaped vessels. Two bowls found in the pit could be used as lids: along with two lids, they correspond to the four vessels (pear-shaped and two-tiered) that were used with lids. They are recognized as bowls due to the fact that their handles feature horizontal channels, in contrast to vertical ones usually found in lids. One of the bowls is decorated with running helices, and the other one is repeatedly encircled by a single white decorative strip. Both bowls feature undecorated bottoms ( 1981b: Table III/1, 3). Two hemispherical lids have rounded decorated bottoms. The composition of the decor consists of a motif of concentric semicircles repeated four times ( 1981b: Table II/5, III/2). In the center of the bottom of one of them, is a composition that is typical for disc knobs of bell-shaped lids (Fig. 43/5), which indicated a typologically late nature of this article, which combines the attributes of different vessel types. Painting technique of the lids also appears to be of a late type: white lines that form the pattern are thinner and were applied over a red surface (in contrast to the prototypes, where the order of application of the paints was inversed). Similar thin white lines applied over a layer of red paint also decorate one of the beakers (Fig. 43/3) ( 1985: Fig. 53). These patterns were further developed in North-Moldavian sites belonging to Cucuteni 1 period, such as Corltni, Sarata-Drgueni, Drgueni-la Vie, Cucuteni-Dmbul Morii, and CucuteniCetuia (Nestor et al. 1952: Fig. 3; Dumitrescu 1968: Fig.

41; Crmaru 1977: 99, 104, Fig. 67/2; 68/4, 7, 9, 71/3; Petrescu-Dmbovia 1965: Fig. 6, 7/2). The relatively late character of this site in the framework of settlements of the final part of Cucuteni period in Northern Moldavia is indicated by vessels decorated in style: painting in black (dark-brown) paint over light-colored background. These include a large pearshaped vessel on a base-tray, a hemispherical bowl, and a spherical vessel. The latter was probably used with the small lid whose decoration style is close to the group : painting in dark-brown lines over the natural background (Fig. 44/14) ( 1985: Fig. 54). The beaker, the bowl, and the pear-shaped vessel with a base-tray are decorated with sophisticated compositions of running spiral fragments supplemented with scallops and slanted vertical bands that separate individual parts of the pattern. Complexity of decorative motifs that are overloaded with a significant amount of additional details indicate the typologically late nature of these items. Analogs to them are represented in assemblages of sites located further to the South, such as Jura (Fig. 70/67; 71/9), and Solonceni II2 belonging to Cucuteni period ( 1965: 94, Fig. 20/3). Conversely, the spherical vessel features the helical pattern simplified up to a motif of concentric circles. Analogs to this item were found in settlements of Niezwiska II and Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului ( 1962: Fig. 26/11; 1997a: Fig.1/9). The latter site manifests features of the earlier stages of the subsequent period, Cucuteni , although samples of bichromatic pottery that is typical for North-Moldavian sites of Tripolye BICucuteni are also present in it. Similar evolution of helical decorative patterns also take place in anumber of articles from Traian-Dealul Fntnilor III belonging to Cucuteni 2 period (Dumitrescu 1945: pl. XV/13, 68, 10; XVIII/1; etc.), where, however, running helices are transformed into the Tangentenkreisband, i.e. a pattern of circles interconnected with diagonal lines, rather than simple circles. Comparison of forms and patterns, although unsubstantiated by a sufficient sampling (due to the specificity of the explored closed assemblage) demonstrates that what one encounters in this case is regular typological changes of the main pottery group of North-Moldavian sites: that of ceramics decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting. The predominance of bichromatic pottery originating from relief-decorated ware is confirmed both by the presence of bichromatic painting in the widest range of forms, and by series of articles with identical decorations (Fig. 18). Therefore, the pottery assemblage of Brnzeni IV pit may be considered to be the latest one among known North-Moldavian sites of Tripolye BI, a transition towards the next stage of culture development. The above review of Tripolye BICucuteni sites providing ceramic assemblages analogous to those explored in Ciugur river valley defines an entire horizon of settlements occupying a compact territory in the basin of Middle Pruth and Upper Rut rivers. Their reciprocal proximity is corroborated by both the general composition of ceramic assemblages and individual analogies. All of the settlements belong to the final phase of the period,

Cucuteni 4. Therefore, these assemblages can be distinguished as a separate local and chronological site type that we suggest to denote as Drgueni-Drua, according to the names of reference settlements. Studying the materials of earlier sites located in the same territory would allow solving the problems of genesis of this type.

4.1.3. Trueti and Cuconetii Vechi I type NorthMoldavian sites

 30

The key role in studying the problems of formation of Drgueni-Drua type sites in Northern Moldavia belongs to the material from two settlements: Cuconetii Vechi I located at Pruth river (excavated by V.I.Marchevici in 1973 and 19761977) and Trueti-ugueta I upon river Jijia (excavated by M.Petrescu-Dymbovia in 1951 1961). Six objects were uncovered in Cuconetii Vechi I: four platforms, a dugout and a semi-dugout, and the settlements of Trueti I was excavated almost completely; 93 buildings there belong to Cucuteni period. Peculiarity of Cuconetii Vechi I and Trueti assemblages enabled K.K.Chernysh to distinguish them as a separate, third stage of Middle Tripolye-Cucuteni period. This stage is earlier than the sites of the final part of Cucuteni , such as Duruitoarea Nou and Drgueni. However, at the time, this hypothesis was not sufficiently substantiated (, 1982: 199). The settlement of Cuconetii Vechi I is situated at the surface of a rocky cape formed by the channels of rivers Sukhoy Rakovets and Pruth and fortified by defensive ditches and walls on the field side ( 1973: 70; Marchevici 1997: 81). It is geographically adjacent to the site group of Ciugur river valley described above (see Fig. 4). Unfortunately, the collection of Cuconetii Vechi I is now partially devoid of documentation. However, the ceramic assemblage from Platform 1 excavated in 1976, stored in the stocks of the museum of Chair of Archaeology, History Department of Moscow State University, and Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography of Modavian Academy of Sciences, Chisinau, is completely fit for processing ( 1997b). Dwelling 1 made part of a group of one dugout and four platforms (No. 14) that formed a row (Marchevici 1997: Fig. 2). The dwelling dimensions are 8.27.8m. Presence of elements of interior and an oven under the layer of floor plaster, the building consisted of two stories. The finds were mostly located under the plaster layer. The volume of the pottery assemblage from Platform 1 is rather large: above 160 recoverable and fragmented items have been documented. Predominance of fragments suggests that the available material also reflects the features of the occupation layer (Fig. 12); therefore, quantitative indicators of the assemblage are quite comparable to those of assemblages found in Drua buildings (Fig. 9, 10, 11). The pottery set of the building comprises vessels adorned with relief (incised and fluted) and painted decorations, as well as ware with smooth or roughly leveled surfaces. The latter type is represented by cauldrons and pithoi (about 15 items), which are forms also typical for other sites. Some of these vessels feature knobbles and

fragments of modeled-on cylinders located near their edges. Some (mostly large) articles are provided with handles arranged in staggered layout. Most Cuconetii Vechi I vessels were fired in oxidizing environment; their crocks are of different shades of pink and yellow. However, some of the available fragments of pottery might have undergone reducing firing. Most of the ware represents relief-decorated pottery. Features of earlier-type styles than represented in pottery from Drua I settlement described above and other analogous sites are the most strikingly manifested in the series of pear-shaped vessels (15 items) and lids that were used with them. Among the pear-shaped vessels, there are articles modeled both with and without a short inverted rim (Fig. 48/13; 51/1). Most of them are provided with incised decoration, often to be combined with painting spaces between the incised lines with red or black (darkbrown) paint. The incisions are either unpainted or filled with white paint (Fig. 48/23). The largest item have two decoration zone: the bottom zone and the body one. The bottom part is adorned with patterns that are typical in bowls: the wave and slanted ellipses (Fig. 48/1, 10). The body zone is decorated with motifs composed of running S-shaped helices or volutes. A spiral pattern of flutes combined with a background filled with red paint is only found in one reconstructed pear-shaped vessel (Fig. 48/11). There are also several fragments of vessels where flutes themselves, rather than interstices between them, are painted in red. Comparison of this series with pear-shaped vessel series excavated in Drua I reveals that articles of the earlier type, featuring incised decoration, prevail in Cuconetii Vechi I, while in Drua, such items are isolated. Conversely, later-type objects (with fluted decor), that form and overwhelming majority in Drua, are rare in Cuconetii Vechi I (Fig. 22). A similar situation is also seen when considering lids matching respective vessels. In Cuconetii Vechi I, there is a series of lids with disc-shaped knobs and bodies consisting of two parts, a hemisphere and a truncated cone. These parts correspond to two respective decoration zones (Fig. 48/2). Apparently, this design corresponds to Early Tripolye lid samples, wherein a small disc- or mushroomshaped knob is installed at a high neck (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 41/4, 76/14; Marinescu-Blcu 1974: Fig. 33/3, 43/1, 34; 1980: Fig. 75/7; 1953: Tables 56/; etc.) Some of these lids have anthropomorphic or zoomorphic knobs (Marinescu-Blcu 1974: Fig. 83/16). The truncated-cone-shaped necks of the lids also have their analogs in Early Tripolye bowls with cylindrical bottom parts ( 1989: 80, 107, Fig. 47/36, 37; Marinescu-Blcu 1974: 82, Fig. 57/8). The described lids are earlier than those present in collections of North-Moldavian sites of Cucuteni 4 period: the latter typically have lid knobs emphasized by just one or two horizontal flutes (Fig. 30/14). Lids are provided with ear-shaped handles with vertical channels that correspond to the channels in handles of pear-shaped vessels. Bowls, mostly adorned with incised decorations (44 items) are more varied in Cuconetii Vechi I than in Drua.

 31

This variety is seen, among other aspects, in different orientation of handles that may have both horizontal and vertical channels (Fig. 48/7, 8, 9). The latter variant makes them similar to the lids. Some articles also represent a different profile of the rim: it has a sub-triangular crosssection, with a bulge along the inner diameter. Slanted decorative lines of bowls form compositions of waves or slanted ellipses (Fig. 48/7, 8). Spaces between decorative figures are typically filled with red, and incised lines with white, paint (Fig. 48/7). Some of these bowls (6 items) have hollow cylindrical pedestals. These objects may be decorated on the inside, with incised or painted patterns. They are mostly represented by small fragments in Dwelling 1. One bowl with S-shaped profile is present in the collection (Fig. 50/5). This archaic item is decorated with comparatively thin drawn lines forming helical compositions. Its shape and decoration pattern make it similar to articles from Hbeti (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXX/1, LXXI/5) and Early Tripolye sites, such as Lencovtsy and Luka-Vrublevetskaya, ( 1959: Tables VI/11, VII/22, VIII/18; 1953: Tables 59/, , 61/). Beakers (about 20 items) have rounded bodies and small exverted rims. Difference from Drua samples can be seen both in profiles of these objects (the neck is usually not defined) and in decoration of bottoms that typically have a slightly concave shape. This design of the bottom originating from the flat-bottom tradition of pottery manufacturing is also typical for beakers from Early Tripolye sites (Bernovo-Luka, Luka-Ustinskaya, Lencovtsy, Luka-Vrublevetskaya, etc.) Beakers are decorated with horizontal or slanted flutes (Fig. 49/45). Zigzagging compositions have also been found. Handles are sometimes additionally decorated with circles. Spaces between flutes are mostly painted red. In some items, flutes are supplemented with hollows and polished (Fig. 50/2). These features, along with abovementioned differences in shapes, can also be attributed to earlier types: polishing of flutes and providing them with hollows or impression of dies are typical for PrecucuteniTripolye period, where they are present in significant series of articles ( 1989: 96103). On the contrary, in the later site of Drua I, fluted decoration combined with hollows was only found in one item (Fig. 29/10), and polishing of flutes was not used at all. This type of decoration is not found in other similar sites of the end of Cucuteni period either (Duruitoarea Nou I, Duruitoarea Vechi, Drgueni). Pots are also decorated with flutes. On one of the items, flutes form a pattern composed of running spirals with circles inscribed in the centers of their crossing (Fig. 49/1). Jugs are decorated with flutes or incised lines (Fig. 49/7). One of them is provided with handles that feature horizontal channels rather than normal vertical ones. Incised lines and flutes also decorate the numerous binocular objects (above 20 items; Fig. 86/23). They are widely varied, mostly with respect to the shapes of central connectors. There are plain flat connectors with a prominence on the top and more sophisticated ones, featuring couples of prominences or hollows on the bottom side. Two triple connectors were also found, which con-

nect not only the two bodies, but also the lower connector (Fig. 50/11, 12). In Cuconetii Vechi series, decoration of binoculars connectors and middle, cylindrical, parts of binocular items often make an integer whole: connectors bear helices or simpler compositions of slanted lines that continue on cylinder bodies. These patterns are analogous to decorations found in middle parts of other vessels (pearshaped ones, jugs, etc.) Decoration of funnels either replicates that of bowls (Fig. 86/3) or is a composition of vertical flutes. Unlike the bowls, inner surfaces of upper funnels are always decorated. They bear decorative patterns, composed of semicircles with spaces between them filled with slanted lines, analogs to which can be found in decoration of bottom zones of some bowls and lid discs (Fig. 86/3). Vertical flutes inside the funnels of binocular items match similar flutes located on the outer surface. The image represented by the materials of Dwelling 1 is substantially filled up by individual reconstructed relief-decorated vessels from other excavated buildings (such as Dwellings 24, pit-dwellings) and surface gatherings. They generally correspond to the finds from the described platform. Thus, pear-shaped vessels and their lids form a stable series ( 1989: Fig. 2/2, 7). In some pear-shaped vessels, the bottom zone is adorned with simplified decorations constituting herring-bone patterns or compositions of ellipses (Fig. 48/10). Fluted pear-shaped and spherical vessels were found. Bowls are similar to those discovered in Platform 1. A jug found in Dwelling 3 is decorated with a wave-shaped pattern (Fig. 49/8). A similar vessel, but featuring a decoration composed of running helices, was collected from the surface. There are also fluted jugs. Beakers also correspond to those represented in the collection from Platform 1 (Fig. 50/9). A set of incised decorations on Cuconetii Vechi I vessels forms a typological series that is of a significant importance for revealing the relative chronology of the sites. The following three types of compositions were found in decorative patterns of bowls and (structurally analogous to bowls) lower parts of pear-shaped vessels. 1. A pattern composed of oppositely directed arcshaped figures with overlaying forked ends. The field between the figures of the composition has the aspect of a wave. In Cuconetii Vechi I, this pattern is not only found in lower parts of pear-shaped vessels and in bowls (Fig. 48/4), but also in jugs (Fig. 49/8). Analogies to this pattern exist in Izvoare I and Rusetii Nou (Fig. 78/1; 81/8) (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 15/2), and parallels to it can be seen in Early Tripolye snake-like patterns ( 1991: 2122, Fig. 1/16, 8, 10; 1993: Fig. 2; MarinescuBlcu 1974: Fig. 28/1, 43/1; 1993: Fig. 5/1). 2. The next variation is only slightly different from the previous one: in this case, the ends of the arc-shaped figures are rounded (Fig. 48/1, 57). The wave field between the figures is sometimes filled with black or darkbrown paint (Fig. 48/5, 6), and the figures are filled with fragments of incised lines, spaces between them being sometimes painted red (in this case, the field is white). So, the colors of arc-shaped figures and the field may

 32

alternate in different objects. Apparently, what one deals with here is a reversibility of patterns, which assumes that the decorative field (background) and the figures may change their significative roles ( 1981: 136). Patterns of slanted ellipses may be derived from such reversible patterns as one of the possible ways of their schematization, resulting from closing of ends of arcshaped figures (Fig. 48/23). The composition of running helices, which is typical for body zones of pear-shaped vessels and jugs, can also be similarly derived from reversible patterns. Initially it represents a field between arc-shaped relief snake figures, closed and involute in several coils. The color layout may be different: white field with red figures or black (brown) field with red or light-colored figures. 3. In fluted decorations derived from incised ones, relief and painting change places. White flutes against red background become standard in Drua I, but the reverse order is still found in Cuconetii Vechi I (Fig. 50/9). All described variations were found within a single dwelling in Cuconetii Vechi I. Such wide a variety is quite possible in a settlement where there rigid standards in ware decoration have not yet been established, i.e. a settlement starting the formation of a group or a local variant, where more stable decorative traditions are formed subsequently. The considered typological series of patterns also reflects the relative chronology of the sites. The first type, which is the closest to Early Tripolye samples, was not found in later-date sites (Drua I, Duruitoarea Nou and Vechi, Drgueni, Putineti II and III). The wave pattern, in a highly simplified form, is only present in Drua and Duruitoarea Nou in isolated items (a beaker in Drua I and a bowl in Duruitoarea Nou). On the other hand, decorative patterns of later types are quite widespread in these sites: compositions of slanted ellipses done in incised lines (mostly on bowls), and patterns of running helices, mostly in flutes. Another typological observation can be drawn from comparison of decoration of the bowls: in bowls decorated with slanted ellipses, additional figures in wave pattern (Fig. 48/7) are transformed into a special nearbottom decoration zone with a composition made of circles, spaces between them being filled with slanted lines (Fig. 48/9). Thus, a continuous pattern becomes divided into several horizontal zones: the decorative composition decays. Finds of individual archaic vessels also suggest a comparatively early position of Cuconetii Vechi I site in the framework of Cucuteni period. In addition to the abovementioned bowl with S-shaped profile (Fig. 50/5), a beaker fragment fount at the edge of Dwelling 1 (Fig. 50/3) can be traced back to Early Tripolye samples. It is decorated with polished flutes combined with an incised pattern of a snake-like arc with punctual hollows in the decoration field. Polishing of flutes and, in contrast with the rest of pottery, the dark color of the crock that suggests reducing firing, are generally typical for Early Tripolye-Precucuteni pottery ( 1984: 147148). Incised pattern found on a small pear-shaped vessel and a binocular object (Fig. 50/4; 86/2) is similar in rendering

to this decoration. Vessels with analogous decorations were found in Hbeti and Rusetii Noi I (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXIIILXXIII; 1970: Fig. 13/1, 19, 14/10). It may indicate chronological closeness of these sites to Cuconetii Vechi I. Painted ware is Cuconetii Vechi fairly varied. Due to the bad preservation of paints and fragmented condition of objects, decorations and shapes cannot be reconstructed in all cases. That is why, unfortunately, painting and relief patterns cannot be compared to a full extent. Dwelling 1 yielded a fully reconstructed bowl on a high hollow pedestal with trichromatic helical decoration. The group of painted ware comprises many beakers (7 items found in Dwelling 1). One of them was completely reconstructed (Marchevici 1997: Fig. 5/17). Available fragments of bottoms suggest that painted beakers had rounded bottoms unlike fluted beakers that had concave ones. The trichromatic helical pattern decorates the anthropomorphic vessels (Fig. 51/78). Spherical vessels are represented by fragmented items (about 10 of them in Dwelling 1) decorated with trichromatic painting. Helices and meanders are used as decorative patterns (Fig. 51/1, 2, 3). The spherical vessel on a high pedestal was published by V.I.Marchevici ( 1989: Fig. 1/5). As some of the reconstructed objects suggest, ceramic assemblage of Cuconetii Vechi does not present such striking distinctions in shape between spherical and pearshaped vessels as could be observed in Drua. Painted pear-shaped vessels are of somewhat more squat a build than those decorated with incised patterns (Fig. 51/1, 2). Spherical and pear-shaped vessels are provided with corresponding lids with disc- or mushroom-shaped knobs. On the surface, outside the settlement layer, a cylindrical monocular object with trichromatic painting was found (Fig. 51/6). A unique item was also discovered in Dwelling 1: it is a hollow pedestal with a wide funnelshaped rim that has small cups attached to it. The article is painted with dark-brown paint (Fig. 52) ( 1978: Fig. 1/2). Among the available forms, a slotted bowl pedestal painted with red painting over natural background (Fig. 51/9) should also be noted. It can be traced back to numerous pedestaled bowls modeled after a range of anthropomorphic figures (Dragomir 1987; 1953: 133136). An article of a later type (with the same painted decor, but without slots) was found in Drua I (Fig. 33/5).

This object is apparently analogous to candelabra from Veselyj Kut and Trueti ( 1996: Fig. 9/5; Quitta 1962: Abb. 4a), although its structure is somewhat different. It might be a religious object, similar to vessels of linear-band pottery culture with small cups attached to the rims (Quitta 1962; Hckmann 1987). The range of objects with small cups is fairly wide: fragments of such articles are represented in Trueti (Hckmann 1987: 8997, Fig. 13), in Luka-Vrublevetskaya ( 1953: Table 73), and in Drgneti-Valea Pnzari ( 1997: 118). A bowl with small cups attached to its rim was fond in Hbeti (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. CXVII/1). Similar cups are also attached to the kiln model from Berezovskaya GES ( 1994: 149151, Fig. 1).


 33

Polychromatic decorations of these articles are fairly varied. Several types of them can be distinguished: 1) painting with wide white bands bordered with thin black lines, spaces between the bands being filled with red paint (Fig. 51/2, 7); 2) the same pattern with hatching of the decoration field (background) with thin red lines (Fig. 51/1); 3) the same with additional hatching of background with thin black (dark-brown) lines (Fig. 51/5); 4) sometimes, red nervure lines are painted along the white bands (Fig. 51/8). Painted decor includes both helical and meander motifs. Helical patterns are formed by series of consecutively arranged helices (Fig. 51/1); the running helix on one of the articles imitates the fluted decoration of a pot found in Dwelling 1 (cf. Fig. 49/1 and 51/2). Beakers and small-sized forms are adorned with slanted decorative bands. Meandered decors typically contain more sophisticated patterns than those found in Drua (Fig. 51/3). Some meanders have semicircular ends similar to those seen in samples from Trueti (Fig. 55/9). Zigzagging patterns were also found (Fig. 51/4). One of the items is decorated with a painted pattern of diamonds drawn in thin white lines over red background (Fig. 50/10). When examining painted ware from Cuconetii Vechi, we also encountered a much wider variety of pottery forms and decors than in sites described in previous sections. The multicomponent character of the ceramic assembly is further emphasized by the cases of overlaying of different decorative designs. For instance, in a beaker decorated with vertical flutes, there is an overlaying painted meander pattern that does not at all correspond to the relief pattern (Fig. 50/8). Comparison of shapes and decorations of vessels from Dwelling 1 in Cuconetii Vechi confirms the earlier date of this settlement with respect to the sites of DruaDrgueni type once again (Fig. 20). The main set of ware (the Group II) that forms the core of the site ceramic assemblage mostly features incised decorations. Only the beakers, few pear-shaped vessels and some of the pots and jugs, also few in number, are decorated with flutes. Pottery with black hatched painting over light-colored engobe background is not represented. The only beaker with ill-preserved bichromatic (or faded trichromatic?) painting can also be considered to be an exception. There also is a distinctly separate group of painted ware consisting of beakers and spherical vessels, whose existence with the same composition preserved intact is also detected in later sites of Drua type. Cuconetii Vechi I settlement or other similar site could well be the starting point in formation of the micro-group of settlements in Ciugur river valley considered above that belong to the next phase Cucuteni 4 (Drua I, Duruitoarea Nou and Vechi). The chronological gap between Cuconetii Vechi I and Drua I might be comparatively small. Within the framework of Cucuteni Tripolye I period, Cuconetii Vechi I belongs to the phase of Cucuteni 3 according to Vl.Dumitrescus system. The settlement of Trueti-ugueta I is situated at a high cape at the bank of river Jijia (a right-hand tributary

of Pruth river), fortified with a defensive ditch (PetrescuDmbovia et al. 1999: 1315, Fig. 5). Arrangement of dwellings in separate groups, as well as the variety of pottery found in them, allows assuming the existence of horizontal stratigraphy and chronological distinctions between materials of different buildings. This hypothesis is further confirmed by the analysis of pottery that was carried out by Romanian researchers (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999: 647673). They attribute the site to the phases of Cucuteni 2 or 3 (Niu 1980; Dumitrescu 1963). Ware with incised or fluted decorations is in this site fairly varied and generally analogous to that of Cuconetii Vechi (Fig. 54) (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999: 266313, Fig. 163203). There also are vessels with Early Tripolye features: punctual hollows in decorative fields outlined with incised lines, patterns of polished flutes combined with pinhole hollows, etc. (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999: Fig. 163/15, 166/1112, etc., Dumitrescu 1968: Fig. 26). Series of similar archaic objects were also found in Hbeti, which is the reference site of Cucuteni 3 period located near Iai (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 276308, pl. LXIIILXXIII). Painted pottery from Trueti is close to that from Cuconetii Vechi (Fig. 55/34, 610) (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999: 313417, Fig. 204286). Some analogies in patterns also makes it similar to Hbeti materials; however, a characteristic feature of painting of Trueti vessels is the frequent addition of red nervure lines to the white bands of their decor (Fig. 55/6, 8, 10). Trueti I site also provides the earliest samples of painting with thin black (dark-brown) lines over white engobe background that was a prototype of group styles (Fig. 55/11) (PetrescuDmbovia et al. 1999: Fig. 204/810, 218/3). Differences in adorning techniques of monocular and binocular objects with incised decorations, similar to those observed in Cuconetii Vechi I, are also found in the ceramic assemblage of this site. Items of these types are analogous to those from Cuconetii Vechi (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999: 346, 369, Fig. 192 197, 242245). In the settlement of Mitoc-Prul lui Istrati, remnants of two surface clay buildings were partially excavated (Popovici 1986: 912). Vessels with fluted and incised decorationsbowls, beakers, pear-shaped vessels, jugs, and binocular objectsa similar to those found in Cuconetii Vechi (Popovici 1986: pl. IV; V/14, 6; VI/27). Fragments of painted beakers have some analogs among the Hbeti pottery (cf. Popovici 1986: pl. III/1 2, 45 and Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXVI). A fragment of the rim of a pear-shaped vessel is also decorated with tricolor painting (Popovici 1986: pl. III/3). Badragii Vechi settlement situated upon river Pruth also belongs to the group of Cuconetii Vechi-Trueti type sites ( 1973: 56). Its painted pottery is similar to the materials of the sites described above, and is analogous to that found in Trueti (Fig. 53). Materials of said sites allow to distinguishing them collectively as an early chronological horizon of Tripolye ICucuteni in Northern Moldavia. This group of Trueti-Cuconetii Vechi type sites precedes the appearance of sites of Drgueni-Drua type. Sites of Trueti-

Cuconetii Vechi type belong to the phases of Cucuteni 23 according to Vl.Dumitrescus classification. A more detailed chronology of these sites can not yet be conjectured due to the limited character of available materials. Trueti-Cuconetii Vechi type sites are characterized by the presence of a large group of vessels with incised decorations, as well as by patterns of polished flutes combined with pinpoint hollows, close to Early Tripolye decorations. Painted pottery of these sites corresponds to that of Cucuteni and Hbeti, settlements in the basin of Bahlui river and in adjacent areas along the Middle Siret river in Central Moldova. Nevertheless, it also features some locally specific features, such as the red nervure lines drawn over the decoration bands.

4.1.4. North-Moldavian type settlements in Dniester Lands

Geographical situation of sites located in Dniester Lands is immediately adjacent to those of Northern Moldavia (see Fig. 3). They are however explored to a lesser extent despite the fact that most of them were discovered as early as 194050s by T.S.Passeks expedition. Nevertheless, no series of excavated sites were formed in this region that could allow for producing a sufficiently distinct picture of development trends of pottery material. The best-known Tripolye site in Middle Dniester Lands is the multilayer settlement near the village of Molodovo in Polivanov Yar tract excavated by T.S.Passek in 19491951 ( 1961: 105138; 2003). Its lower layer denoted as Polivanov Yar III (surface dwellings 1 and 6, semi-dugouts 4a, 5 and 13, and defensive ditches) is attributed to Tripolye BI period. Based on comparison of materials of different objects of the third layer, T.A.Popova defined two levels that reflect the two consecutively developing chronological phases of the period BI ( 1972: 59; 1979: 70; 2003: 1013, Table 2). The two chronological phases were defined according to the criterion of the amount of painted pottery that ranges from 10% in surface dwellings up to 4050% in semi-dugouts 4, 5 and 13 ( 2003: Table 6). However, vertical stratigraphy of the buildings that could corroborate these conclusions lacks except the case of overlaying of the Ditch 2 with the Semi-Dugout 13 ( 1972: 5; 1961: 133). Individual assemblages of Polivanov Yar III could quite possibly represent different stages of a continuous existence of the settlement separated by minimal chronological gaps ( 2003: 12). The ceramic assemblage of Polivanov Yar III generally corresponds to the materials from Cuconetii Vechi I and Trueti. A major part of the set is constituted by pottery with incised and fluted decorations. Incised lines were used to decorate bowls ( 2003: 4345, 70,
It was already mentioned above that the research method based on comparison of percentage proportions of different types of decorations without a detailed reconstruction and correlation with different forms of vessels is not very reliable when used to derive chronological distinctions. Differences of assemblages could also originate from differences in processes of material accumulation in surface structures and semi-dugouts.


 34

Fig. 24/412; 39/4, 67). Pear-shaped vessels and their respective lids, as well as binocular objects, are decorated with incised lines or flutes ( 2003: 4546, 6974, Fig. 25, 27, 40, 41, etc.) Among the patterns of relief decorations, both archaic ones that represent Early Tripolye snakes ( 2003: Fig. 24/8, 32/13), and stylized ones, in the form of running helices, slanted lines, scallops or ellipses, are found. A series of beakers decorated with flutes is analogous to those from Cuconetii Vechi and Trueti ( 2003: 5254, 74, Fig. 28/14, 42/15, 9). In some of these articles, flutes are combined with impressions of a comblike die, which indicates connection to Eastern Tripolye sites ( 2003: 51, Fig. 29). Painted pottery is also analogous to that known in the sites of Trueti-Cuconetii Vechi I type ( 2003: 4849, 7475, Fig. 4347). Another proof of the chronological proximity of these sites lies in the absence of shell-tempered Cucuteni C ware both in Polivanov Yar III and in Cuconetii Vechi or Trueti. The settlement of Ttruca Nou III situated upon Dniester near the village of the same name in Dondueni District, Republic of Moldova (, 1997; Palaguta 2003). Prospecting of nearby territories revealed about a score of Tripolye sites of different periods; some of them belong to the period of Tripolye BI (Fig. 5) (see , 1982; Sava et al. 1995). Excavations carried out in 1996 at an area of 112sq.m. located at the edge of the settlement resulted in exploration of a 10 to 15cm thick occupation layer. Uniform distribution of material within the layer and absence of distinct remnants of building structures, as well as abundant presence of waste of flint tools manufacturing and animal bones, allow interpreting the excavated spot as a working area situated at the edge of the settlement. Reconstruction of the surface of pre-native-soil layer and observations of fragments distribution of reconstructed vessels allowed assuming that the explored layer fragment was formed not only by anthropogenic, but also by natural factors (, 1997: 76). Excavations of Ttruca Nou III allowed for an analysis of qualitative and quantitative composition of finds from a Tripolye settlement occupation layer unrelated to specific habitable or utility buildings. Fragments of some 350 vessels were collected in the excavated area; only 24 vesselsi.e. about 7% of the total numbercould be successfully reconstructed. Since what was studied in the excavation area is a part of an open archaeological assemblage that was produced within a time interval approximately coinciding with the time of existence of the settlement, fragments of beakers, bowls and kitchenware prevail in the assemblage, collectively amounting to about 80% of all pottery (Fig 8, 15) (Palaguta 2003: 7, Abb. 4). The ware is made of clay with admixtures of chamotte and, in few case, of sand. Firing of most vessels was oxidizing: crocks are of various shades of brown and red. Cauldron and barrel-shaped pithoi are represented in sizeable series (about 80 items) (Fig. 57/14, 15). They are mostly undecorated and feature rough rugged surfaces covered with band-wise leveling. Shoulders of dome of them are adorned with patterns of a horizontal series of

 35

vertical impressions of small sticks or fingers. Modeled-on knobbles or handles make another typical element of decoration. The single fragment of neck of a jug-like vessel with rough, carelessly cut surface can also be listed among kitchenware. Share of such vessels amounts to 23.3% (Fig. 8). Fragments of truncated-cone-shaped bowls make some 30% of the total volume of the collection (above 100 items). Rim diameter of bowls ranges from 12 to 46cm. Measured results allowed distinguishing a number of standard diameters: 1214 and 1718cm; 2326cm; and 3032cm and 4446cm (Table). Two types of bowls can be conventionally defined: simple truncated-cone-shaped bowls, and bowls with truncated-cone-shaped bodies and exverted rims. Rims of some of the bowls have sub-triangular cross-sections. Most bowls are decorated with incised patterns of slanted ellipses or slanted lines; isolated items bear compositions of a wave or helices (Fig. 56/18, 10). In about 20% of the bowls, rims are also decorated on the inside or on the outside. These decorative patterns mostly consist of fragments of incised lines or of hollows (Fig. 56/3, 10). Five bowls are adorned on the outside with a specific pattern in the form of a helically curled band consisting of 34 incised lines that envelop the vessel from the center of its bottom towards the edges (Fig. 56/7). About 10 bowls are undecorated; some of them could have been painted (Fig. 56/9). Pedestaled bowls make about 1.7% of the total amount of vessels (8 items). They may be decorated with incised patterns or unadorned, with smooth surfaces (Fig. 56/12, 13, 14; some of them probably also were painted). Pear-shaped vessels with rounded bodies, small inverted rims and truncated-cone-shaped bottom parts are only represented in fragments. Their share amounts to some 3.8% (13 items). Most of them are decorated with incised patterns forming helical compositions (Fig. 56/12, 46). The number of lids roughly matches that of pearshaped vessels. The reconstructed shape consists of a discshaped knob and a body consisting of two parts, a cylinder and a truncated cone. Similarly to the pear-shaped vessels, the lids are ornate with incised or fluted decorations (Fig. 56/3, 11, 13). Painted spherical vessels are only represented by three rim fragments (0.9%). Polychromatic painting is very illpreserved. Besides, fragments of the base-tray of a spherical vessel decorated with flutes (Fig. 59/17) were found. Pots are also comparatively few in number (5 items or 1.5%). Preserved fragments allow reconstructing the shape of the upper parts of pots featuring slightly narrowed necks and small exverted rims, decorated with incised lines (Fig. 58/7). Jugs make about 3.2% of all vessels (11 items). This form can be recognized distinctly enough by the presence of a high narrowed neck and massive handles with vertical channels. They are decorated with an incised pattern forming helical compositions or with flutes (Fig. 58/1, 36). Beakers amount to 26.5% of volume of the ceramic assemblage (above 90 items). They have standardized shapes: small flatted or slightly concave bottom, spherical body with a handle with a vertical channel located at the level of maximum diameter, cylindrical neck, and small

exverted rim. Proportions of the beakers being approximately constant, their rim diameters range from 68 to 1214cm. The beakers are decorated with flutes. Beaker neck is usually emphasized with 24 horizontal flutes; slanted or vertical flutes are located on the body (Fig. 59/15, 78). More complex compositions made of circles or helices were only found in isolated items (Fig. 59/6). A special series comprising fragments of just four items (1.2%) is constituted by beakers decorated with flutes combined with impressions of a toothed die (Fig. 59/911). They distinguished from the rest of the pottery, not only by a different direction of flutes, but also by the admixture of sand in the clay mixture. These beakers were apparently imported from Eastern territories (such articles are typical for sites in Bug Lands). Binocular objects found in the settlement are diverse. They amount to some 4% (14 items) and are decorated with incised or fluted patterns. Diameter of funnels of binocular items is 1416cm; their height is 1518cm. One item is a reduced-size object, 10cm high and without the middle connector. Bodies of binocular objects typically feature series of horizontal lines or, more rarely, a wave. Outer surfaces of rims bear patterns of slanted ellipses or scallops that are typical for bowls; doubled slanted flutes are also regularly found. Inner surfaces are decorated with scallops or vertical flutes (Fig. 58/910). The series of miniature ware partially corresponds to the main set. In addition to the reduced-size binocular object mentioned above, it comprises a miniature beaker and two bowls. Rare shapes include fragments of a vessel with a stem and those of a cup with a spout. Ttruca Nou III ware is mostly adorned with incised or fluted decorations. Incised patterns are found in bowls, jugs, pots, binocular objects, pear-shaped vessels, and lids (Fig. 21). Flutes decorate beakers, some of the jugs, pots and binocular objects. In some cases, they are supplemented with pinpoint hollows, which represent an archaic feature that was typical for Early Tripolye (Fig. 59/12, 13). Some of the fragments bear traces of ochre painting and filling incised lines with white paint. Unfortunately, the degree of integrity of paint layers in Ttruca Nou III is very low due to the conditions of objects deposition in chernozem soil. This is why in all probability, some of the vessels with smooth surfaces could be decorated with polychromatic painting; traces of such painting are found in isolated fragments. The small amount of painted pottery makes the materials of this settlement similar to those of Eastern Tripolye sites, Southern Bug basin and Bug-Dniester interfluves. Nevertheless, Ttruca Nou III is generally analogous to finds from the settlements of Cuconetii Vechi I, Trueti, Polivanov Yar III; compositions of respective ceramic assemblages are also rather close to each other (cf. Fig. 20 and 21). This allows assuming them to be synchronous. The settlement of Ttruca Nou III is not the only one in this region. Other Tripolye ICucuteni settlements existed within the explored zone, making to groups related to the basins of Dniester and Kainara river, one of tributaries of river Rut (Fig. 5). One of them includes

Ttruca Nou III and the sites of Ttruca Nou XIV and Balini Veche I discovered in 1997. The other one comprises Arioneti VI, Pocruca I, and Pocruca II (, 1982: 179, 188189). The two groups are located 710km from each other; distance between the closest sites in the group are bout 2km. Topography of the sites differ. Arioneti VI, Pocruca I and II and Ttruca Nou III are situated at the edge of a plateau and connected to groundwater outlets (similarly to most Tripolye settlements located in analogous conditions). Ttruca Nou XIV and Balini Veche I are in Dniester valley, on average 150m. This difference could be related to oscillations of groundwater level and, therefore, to climatic changes that took place in ancient times, which compelled changing the location of settlements according to different moisture conditions. The settlement of Darabani I belongs to the same group of early chronological stage of Tripolye BI period as Polivanov Yar III and Ttruca Nou III (Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Saint-Petersburg, Coll. 2620). Its polychromatic painted ceramics matches materials from Trueti, Hbeti and Cucuteni (Fig. 60/3) (cf.: Ambrojevici 1933: 2829, Fig. 4; 1949: 113 116, Fig. 63/8, 1011; 64/59; 1962: 7, 1112, 2021). Pottery with relief decorations manifests some Early Tripolye features (Fig. 60/12) (Ambrojevici 1933: 2628, Fig. 5; 1949: Fig. 65), although shapes and patterns that are typical for other Tripolye I sites are also present ( 1949: Fig. 65/5, 10). Based on Darabani finds, it can be assumed that the population that left the settlements of the previous stage Precucuteni Tripolye , such as Bernovo-Luka, Lencovtsy, LukaVrublevetskaya, Luka-Ustinskaya, etc., played a significant role in composition of some of Middle Dniester sites ( 1961: 4260; 1959; 1953; 1961). Some of the materials from Luka-Vrublevetskaya can also be attributed to Middle Tripolye period ( 1979: 70; 1998). According to description of some of the dugouts, the layer of this settlement comprises two levels ( 1953: 1819), one of which might belong to the beginning of Tripolye BI. Materials comparable to the pottery of later NorthMoldavian sites of Drgueni-Drua type belonging to the stage Cucuteni 4 are represented in settlements of Voloshkovoye, Krinichki, Kaplevka (Rjaboj Yar) ( 1961: 2124), Luka-Vrublevetskaya II ( 1956), Lencovtsy (according to K.K.Chernysh, a Middle Tripolye settlement is located near the well-known Early Tripolye site), and others, known by prospecting. Materials of Tripolye I period were also found in MereovkaCetuia (Sorochin 1997: 67, Fig. 20). Ware with fluted decorations connect these sites to North-Moldavian settleThis concept also complies with the hypothesis of chronological differences between the sites within the microgroup suggested by certain materials from Ttruca Nou XIV. Tripolye layer of this settlement was involved during an excavation of Early Iron Age settlement and burial ground in 1997. Fragments of two painted helmet-shaped lids and a fluted beaker allow preliminarily attributing the site to Cucuteni 4 phase.


 36

ments. However, these prospecting data are not sufficient for a clear comparison. The latest among the considered sites of Middle Dniester Lands is Vasilevka settlement, where 7 surface dwellings and a semi-dugout forming two building levels were explored (, 1989; 1990; 1994). Unfortunately, available publications do not describe the differences between the materials of the semi-dugout, attributed by the authors of the excavations to the lower stratigraphic level, and the upper-level surface dwellings. According to characteristics of the settlement ceramic assemblage as provided by V.A.Shumova, pottery decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting amounts to about 7.5% of the total volume of the set. The corresponding pottery forms include beakers and larger vessels ( 1994: 8283, Fig. 2/1213). Pottery with bichromatic painting is also present: it comprises jugs, pear-shaped vessels, and beakers ( 1994: Fig. 1/7, 11, 16). A significant share (30%) belongs to ceramics with incised decorations; it mostly includes bowls and pear-shaped vessels ( 1994: 82, Fig. 3/111; 1991: Fig. 5/3). Dating of the site to Cucuteni AB1 period is based on polychromatic ceramics decorated with paintings in group styles, as well as vessels with group red-colored painting (Fig. 61/910) ( 1994: Fig. 1/3, 5, 12, 1/4, 910). According to N.M.Vinogradova, the group is one of the latest style groups of Tripolye BIBII (Cucuteni ) ( 1983: 9798). Analogs to Vasilevka vessels painted in group styles were found in Corltni, Polivanov Yar II, Rdulenii Vechi (Vulpe i colab. 1953; 2003: 9396, Fig. 58, 65; Marchevici 1994). Painting of the inner surface of the rim in one of the bowls, which is close to decoration of bowl-lids from Brnzeni IV, is also of a later type (Fig. 61/4) ( 1994, Fig. 2/10; cf. Fig. 43/1). Thus, assuming the attribution of Vasilevka site or some of its assemblages to the period 1, one can note that, on the one hand, pottery traditions of sites of Drua-Drgueni type (fluted and bichromatic pottery) were preserved in a later period. On the other hand, there is a significant presence of vessels with incised decorations, which, by the end of Cucuteni , were forced out of use by fluted and bichromatic ware in North-Moldavian sites. The first possible reason of the situation is that, when the group was separated from the main area, reproduction of shapes and patterns that had been typical for the moment of separation continued. For example, preservation of fluted decorations is also observed in other sites belonging to Cucuteni period in Dniester Lands, such as Babin-Yama settlement ( 1956: Table I). The latest reminiscences of these decorations are represented in Eastern Tripolye sites of BugDniester interfluves attributed to Cucuteni Tripolye BII period, such as Vesely Kut ( 1996: 34, Fig. 5/59). Secondly, Eastern Tripolye population groups, whose pottery typically features incised decorations, might have contributed to the formation of ceramic assemblages in Vasilevka and other similar settlements in Dniester Lands. Based on mentioned parallels in ceramic assemblages, one can establish the unity of sites in Middle Pruth Lands

 37

and Middle Dniester Lands in the period of Tripolye BICucuteni . The main group of pottery consists of ware with relief (incised and fluted) decorations combined with painting using white and red paints. Therefore, these sites may be unified into a common local variant. Synchronization of sites in Northern Moldavia, Middle and Upper Dniester Lands would in this case be represented as follows (Fig. 67). The earliest chronological horizon of sites (period Tripolye BI/1) is composed of the sites of Cuconetii Vechi I and Trueti I in Pruth river basin, and Polivanov Yar III and Ttruca Nou III in Dniester Lands. They generally correspond to the period of Cucuteni 123. A more detailed chronological division of these sites based on available materials, and without studying site chains in micro-regions, is at present impossible. The next period, Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4, includes Drgueni-Drua type settlements and the corresponding Dniester sites. Their ceramic assemblages mostly consist of ware decorated with flutes and bichromatic painting. The latest manifestations of this pottery tradition are revealed in sites that represent the transitional stage towards Cucuteni period (Brnzeni IV). Further development of pottery traditions represented in North-Moldavian sites can be seen in assemblages of settlements belonging to Cucuteni 1 period: SarataDrgueni, Drgueni-la Vie, Drgueni-la Ocoale, and Corltni in North-Eastern Romania, and Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului in Rut river basin in Northern Moldavia (Fig. 62, 63) (Crmaru 1977: 92104, Fig.6271; Nestor et al. 1952; 1997; Palaguta 1998c). Vestiges of the red-and-white bichromy that appeared in Tripolye BICucuteni are also manifested in materials from the site of Rdulenii Vechi II attributed to Cucuteni 2 stage (Marchevici 1994: fig.8/4). An echo of the same tradition can be found in the wide use of paints in later (group ) style compositions in Polivanov Yar II ( 1983: 26, 98). It is not yet quite clear whether these sites are related to Solonceni local variant of Cucuteni period as distinguished by N.M.Vinogradova or reflect a separate development trend of their own. This question can only be answered in further exploration of North-Moldavian sites of Cucuteni period (e.g. Yablona type sites, etc.; see 1989b) that were unknown in early 1970s, when N.M.Vinogradova worked on the materials of Tripolye sites. Sites of Upper Dniester Lands belonging to Tripolye BI period have certain distinctive features. The earliest of these sites include Gorodnitsa-Gorodische settlement, which was first explored in 1878 and 1882 by Polish archaeologists I.Kopernicki and W.Przybyslawski. A fullscale excavation, that uncovered five dugouts and remnants of clay structures covering them, was carried out by M.miszko in 193839 (miszko 1939; 1954; Kozovsky 1924: 133; Kozovsky 1939: 2225). When publishing these materials, V.P.Kravets noted the distinctions between the ceramic material of the platforms and the filling of the dugouts ( 1954: 59). Judging by the published samples, Gorodnitsa pottery corresponds to materials from sites belonging to Tripolye

I/1 stage, i.e. settlements similar to Cuconetii Vechi and Trueti in Northern Moldavia, and Polivanov Yar III and Ttruca Nou III in Middle Dniester region. An important chronological indicator can be seen in presence (mostly in beakers) of archaic decorations composed of polished flutes combined with pinpoint hollows that are related to Early Tripolye traditions ( 1954: 57, Fig. 2/5; 3/13, 5, 8). Incised decorations analogous to the samples from North-Moldavian sites is found in bowls and pear-shaped vessels ( 1954: 5557, Fig. 2/34, 69). In some cases, it is combined with painting the decoration field in red. The suggested dating is further confirmed by fragments of trichromatic painted pottery ( 1954: 57, Fig. 3/1011). Among Upper Dniester Lands settlements, that of Niezwiska II is explored to the greatest extent ( 1962). It is connected to the sites of North-Moldavian Drua-Drgueni type by a series of pottery with incised decorations, as well as by the combination of flutes and bichromatic painting ( 1962: 36, Fig. 22/3, 5, 711, 1314, 1617; 23/5, 9, 12). However, painted pottery from Niezwiska features a number of differences from North-Moldavian ceramics. In painting of Niezwiska ware, the decoration field is often additionally hatched with thin black lines, in addition to being filled with red paint (Fig. 64/1; 65/1, 3, 13, 15); it can even be partially filled with black paint in some samples (Fig. 64/1, 3). Multiplication of red nervure lines in white decorative bands has also been observed (Fig. 65/6, 8, 1415). These features reveal the closeness of Niezwiska pottery to the ware ornate in group decorative styles of Cucuteni period. Beside these, transitional,

samples, other objects decorated in styles 1 and 2 were also found in Niezwiska II (Fig. 65/2, 9, 11). Thus, a series of formation stages of group styles typical for Cucuteni period can be consecutively observed in painted pottery from Niezwiska II. Typological series are here formed by: 1) trichromatic patterns of white bands bordered with black lines and containing one or several nervure line each; and 2) patterns of white bands with black borders arranged over a red field, that can be combined with hatching in black lines or with continuous filling the decoration field with black paint. Painting compositions of Niezwiska pottery are also different from those found in Northern Moldavia (Fig. 64/3; 65/3) ( 1962: Fig. 21/2625; 23/8,13).They are more complex and overloaded with numerous additional elements (mostly fragments of helices), which is another attribute of later type of styles. Thus, painted decorations manifest here a substantial amount of features that are typical for the later Cucuteni period. The found spherical vessel decorated with painting in group style allows comparing this site to Brnzeni IV ( 1962: 49, Fig. 26/11; cf.: Fig. 44/1). Analogs of some of the patterns (Fig. 64/2) are also present in Duruitoarea Nou I. Samples of painted pottery from Kudrintsy are rather close to those from Niezwiska (Fig. 66) (collections of P.V.Syuzev, Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Inv. 2631). They feature a similar complication of helical patterns and a transition to later Cucuteni styles. According to available materials, these sites should be attributed to the very beginning of Cucuteni period. It is based on them that the Zaleschiki local variant was formed at that time ( 1983).

4.2. Settlements of Jura and Bereti type in the Southern part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area
Jura settlement was one of the first Tripolye I sites with polychromatic pottery to be excavated in Soviet Union after the last war. The excavation was carried out in 1952 and 1954 under direction of S.N.Bibikov ( 1954: 104110; 1959: 4346). Finds are stored in the State Hermitage Museum in St.-Petersburg (Inv. 52, excavation of 1952) and in the stock of Institute of Archaeology of Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences in Kiev (Inv. 308, excavation of 1954). The settlement of Jura is located on the left bank of Dniester, near the village of the same name of Rybnitsky region of Moldavia. At present it is flooded by waters of Dubossary reservoir. In 1952, remnants of four walled platforms (I, III, IV, and V) were partially opened in bank-fall, under a layer of delluvial depositions up to 57 m thick, to be have finally excavated in 1954 ( 1954: 104106). Distribution of ceramics in the dwellings is the following: about 15 vessels were found in Dwelling (Platform) I, above 35 in Dwelling III, and 42 in Dwelling IV. Only some crocks and a funnel fragment of a binocular article were encountered in the ill-preserved Platform V. Most of the vessels represented in assemblages of Jura dwellings are unbroken or recoverable. Therefore it is possible to assume that the set contains the ware that had been in simultaneous use and was abandoned along with the buildings. Quantitative proportion of different forms varies accordingly. Unlike the materials from Drua and Cuconetii Vechi dwellings described above, wherein the composition of ceramic assemblages also reflects the characteristics of a layer (with prevailing fragments of kitchenware, beakers and bowls), such distinct a predominance of any types of forms is not detected in Jura dwellings (Fig. 13). These materials can be considered as reflecting the characteristics of closed assemblages similar to that of the pit from Brnzeni IV. It is worthwhile to analyze the ceramic assemblage of the settlement from two points of view: both as a whole, and as ceramic assemblages of individual dwellings. This approach provides a general understanding of pottery of the settlement and its types, which is necessary to enable comparing it with materials of other sites, and also allows revealing distinctions in assemblages of different buildings. On the whole, the set of pottery forms in Jura does not differ from those of other sites of this period in Pruth-

 38

This vessel, undoubtedly related to the time of existence of Niezwiska II layer, was found re-deposited in a higher layer corresponding to the period Tripolye BII.


Dniester interfluves. These are bowls, lids, pear-shaped and spherical vessels, jugs, pots, beakers, cauldrons and pithoi, as well as binocular and monocular items. They are variously decorated, but unlike North-Moldavian sites, the main part, or the core of this ceramic assemblage consists of vessels with trichromatic painting of Cucuteni A, AB styles and of those with monochromatic blackand-white styles of group . There is a comparatively small series of vessels with incised decorations. Several binocular items and two pear-shaped vessels are decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting. The most characteristic features of the ceramic assemblage of the settlement are revealed in pear-shaped vessels and vessels with spherical or sphero-conical bodies. Bodies of Jura pear-shaped vessels were composed of two parts: a spherical top and a truncated-cone-shaped bottom, with a noticeable break of the profile line between them. In most cases, the bottom is additionally provided with a base-tray (Fig. 68/1, 3, 9; 69/1, 56; 71/4). Dimensions of these vessels vary noticeably. Some samples more than 40cm high and 60cm in diameter, but quite small items are also present (18cm high and 15cm in diameter). Attachment of a base-tray is generally typical for roundbottom tradition of manufacturing vessels bottom. In Jura, it coexists with the flat-bottomed tradition. Examples of interaction between the two are also found among the pottery: in one of the pear-shaped vessels, the base-tray is imitated by overlaying an additional band over the flatbottom shape (Fig. 69/6). Vessels with spherical or sphero-conical bodies are closely related to the group of pear-shaped ones by their design and decorations. They have either a small flat bottom or a base-tray. A break of the profile line in the lower part of the body is noticeable in three vessels (Fig. 70/12), which might reflect imitation of emphasized bottom parts of pear-shaped vessels. Most pear-shaped and spherical vessels are decorated with trichromatic paintings in B style. Background is usually continuously filled with red paint, but in some cases it is hatched with a grid of thin red lines (Fig. 70/1; 71/4; 72/4). Only two fragments of vessel walls decorated with trichromatic painting with a thin red nervure line along white decorative bands, that are typical for North-Moldavian sites (Fig. 71/10) were found in Jura. An identical red strip also adorns the decoration bands of another fragmentary vessel of spherical shape with network decorative pattern, which is untypical for Jura pottery (Fig. 72/4). Polychromatic decorations on a number of vessels are formed by compositions of series of S-shaped helices with overlaying ends. Similar arrangements of helices can be found in pottery decoration of such items as Izvoare II and Bereti (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 139/1; 151; 185; Revue Roumaine 1984, 9: color inserts after pp. 24 and 40); the
The AB style was distinguished by Vl.Dumitrescu in his research of materials of Cucuteni A2 Traian-Dealul Fntnilor III settlement. It is characterized in that white bands of decoration are bordered with comparatively wide black strips of nearly the same width. The decoration field red (Dumitrescu 1945: 46-47, pl. I/1-2; Laszlo 1966: 15, Fig. 7/1).


also exist in several samples from Drgueni published by A.Crmaru (Crmaru 1977: Fig. 25/8). This composition is rather specific and is not typical for all Cucuteni A sites. Its reproduction can reflect local specificity of sites. Only three of Jura painted vessels are decorated with the running spiral patterns, two of them originating from Dwelling IV (Fig. 68/8, 69/1, 71/7). Intervals between the main series of helices (the dominant) and horizontal delimiters of decoration zones, as well as the space between the helices, are filled with additional elements composed of S-shaped helices and their fragments. Presence of straight or slightly curved fragments of bands that interconnect helices and lines delimiting the zones (Fig. 68/3, 7, 9). Specific trapezoidal figures that seem to support the main series of helices also make part of these additional elements (Fig. 69/1). Decoration of a large two-tiered vessel from Dwelling IV (Fig. 68/3) consists of four decorative zones that correspond to different parts of the vessel structure: the neck, the shoulders, the body, and the bottom part. The vessel has no handles; they are replaced with prominences located at the level of the largest diameter near the joint between the body and the bottom part. The body zone is decorated with a helical pattern; the bottom part and the neck are ornate with heart-shaped figures (that might be a version of a disintegrated helical pattern). The vessel shoulders bear a checkered pattern applied with black paint over white background (it is also found in one of the Jura jugs: see Fig. 70/5). This motif is known in pottery of some Balkan-Danube and Transylvanian cultures (Boian-Giuleti, Sava, Gumelnia, Petreti) where it is done using various techniques (m 1974: pl. 9/5-6, 13/1, 5; 1986: Fig. 37/6, 9, 15; Dumitrescu 1968: Fig. 21; Aldea 1967: 35, Fig. 3/9; Paul 1995: pl. X). A rectangular geometric pattern of helices is represented in two vessels (Platform IV, Fig. 68/1, 6). This ornament also contains vertical dividing panels (usually related to prominences of handles) that are typical for pottery with painted geometrical decorations of practically all Tripolye-Cucuteni settlements of Cucuteni A period. Such panel of one of the items additionally contains a vertically oriented helix (Fig. 68/1). Pear-shaped vessels are matched by a series of lids, helmet-shaped and with disc-shaped knobs, decorated in style (Fig. 68/2, 5). Some spherical and sphero-conical vessels are adorned with hatched dark-brown painting (style proto-; Fig. 68/4). Lids with the same pattern were also found (Fig. 69/3). One of the spherical vessels, as well as a lid fragment, is decorated in style 1, which is normally typical for a later period of Cucuteni AB (Fig. 70/67). A series of pear-shaped and spherical vessels are ornate with incised decoration that can be combined with red (brown) and black painting. Five such items were found in the same dwelling (Platform IV). All these vessels are similar to each other from the point of view of the structure of decorative composition in the main decoration zone (the body): the pattern is composed by a series of running helices cut off by horizontal zone delimiters
For example, this arrangement of spirals is not found among the painted ceramics from Hbeti (see Dumitrescu et al. 1954).


 39

(Fig. 69/36). The bottom zone of one of them features a heart-shaped motif, which is also typical for painted ware (Fig. 69/3). All these objects do not only have similar compositions of the decor; their ear-shaped handles are located between the helices rather than inside them (as is typical for North-Moldavian sites). This indicated that a different method of arranging and marking patterns was used in this case. Also in Platform IV, a pot with incised decorations is found where the running helices are stylized up to Tangentenkreisband, i.e. a pattern of circles interconnected with disgonal lines (Fig. 69/2) (Schmidt 1932: 38, 40; 1983: 7). Additional vertical lines that connect the helical composition to the edge of the decoration zone remind of the additional trapezoidal figures found in a painted pear-shaped vessel from the same dwelling. They might have served as prototype for similar painted figures, although a possibility of an inverse transfer of the image, from painting to relief pattern, also exists. The ceramic assemblage of the settlement also contains two lids with incised decoration combined with painting (Fig. 69/8). The incised decoration of a spherical vessel from Dwelling III is similar to decor of bowls (Fig. 70/11). Bowls with incised decoration have the truncatedcone shape with an exverted rim (Fig. 71/6). Bowls on base-trays are decorated with trichromatic painting. Two pear-shaped vessels decorated with flutes (Fig. 72/9), drop out of the group of vessels with lids, first of all, because of their different structure: they do not have base-trays, and the bottom part is not distinguished from the rest of the body. A series of jugs decorated with painted helical patterns in style, with background painted continuously or hatched with thin red lines (Fig. 70/8, 9; 71/1, 2), verges the group of painted pear-shaped and spherical vessels. Decorative patterns are formed by S-shaped and rectangular geometrical helices. Some of the jugs are characterized by the presence of a noticeable ledge at the joint between the body and the neck where prominences of ear-shaped handles are sometimes located (fig., 70/8; 71/2). All jugs have flat bottoms. A remarkable item that can be considered a hybrid form was also found. Its body is configured similarly to Jura pear-shaped vessels, and consists of two parts, a sphere and a truncated cone. The vessel also has a basetray. Nevertheless, the vessel also has a high neck and massive handles, similarly to jugs. It is decorated with a trichromatic painted geometrical pattern (Fig. 68/6). A jug from Platform III (Fig. 70/5) is a unique article decorated with four types of decorative patterns. Its rim is painted in style 1; the neck bears hatched painting with dark-brown and red paints arranged in a fishbone pattern with a vertical dividing panel adorned with a checkered pattern. The body is covered with trichromatic painting
It should be noted that the painted pear-shaped vessel with a pattern of running helices mentioned above is also found in the same Dwelling IV.  The combination of paints in decoration of the represented object is the same as seen in some vessels from Cuconetii Vechi I and Trueti.


combined with an incised flute corresponding to the white band of the decor. Beakers are decorated with trichromatic painting. Decorative motifs are the same as in most vessels: Sshaped and geometric helices (Fig. 70/3, 4; 71/7). Jura kitchenware with its rough surfaces devoid of decorations is generally the same as in other TripolyeCucuteni settlements of this time: truncated-cone-shaped cauldrons with walls that diverge from the bottom up, and barrel-shaped pithoi ( 1954: 108, Fig. 57). A vessel from Dwelling III has a high narrow neck, similar to that of a jug (Fig. 70/10), and is decorated with two rows of vertical impressions located on the shoulders and with modeled-on prominences. A jug-like vessel of fairly large dimensions decorated with a series of impressions along the shoulders was also found in Platform I. Among other ceramic finds, there is a fragment of model of a dwelling (Fig. 72/8, 8). Distribution of ware between the assemblages of explored buildings and comparison of them allow making a number of observations on the structure of the settlement assemblage and revealing similarities and distinctions of ceramic assemblages of different dwellings. Presence of a large amount of whole and reconstructed forms enables a detailed analysis of ceramic assemblages of individual platforms. Unfortunately, the archives of Institute of History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St.-Petersburg and of Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine in Kiev lack the documentation on excavation in Jura; therefore, it is impossible to carry out planigraphic studies and to distribute vessels according to their groups found in different dwellings. The only exception is the case of Platform IV; a drawing of this building was published by S.N.Bibikov ( 1959: 46, Fig. 1, 2). One has to content oneself with comparison of ceramic assemblages of each of the excavated dwellings in the assumption that these assemblages are closed ones. The assemblage of Platform IV contains comparatively few beakers and bowls: they are represented by isolated items (in Drua ceramic assemblage, to the contrary, each of the three excavated dwellings contained up to 25% bowls and 1520% beakers; about the same situation was also found in other cases, where ceramics partially came from the layer). Among the materials of the building, the abovementioned series of eight relatively large pear-shaped vessels with lids that were used for storing supplies stands out. Eight more spherical vessels of smaller size were also used with lids. Platform IV is notable for a series of articles that share a number of common features of their decorative patterns. Four out of eight said pear-shaped vessels are decorated with incised helical patterns. A small spherical vessel (Fig. 69/3, 4, 5, 6) joins this set, as well as a pearshaped vessel decorated with painting that imitates the running helices of incised decorations (Fig. 69/1), and a
Shell-tempered pottery of the so-called Cucuteni C type originating from steppe regions is also found in Jura. It is represented by a reconstructed vessel from Platform III and by separate fragments in other excavated platforms (I, IV, and V).


 40

pot with a stylized pattern of incised helices (Fig. 69/2; running are here transformed into a Tangentenkreisband pattern). Both latter items also have in common the trapezoidal figures located under or over the helices. A pattern composed of running helices also marks a spherical vessel (Fig. 68/8). In contrast to the ceramic assemblage of this dwelling, only one fragment of pear-shaped vessels with incised decorations was found within the limits of each of the other buildings; a lid with incised decorative pattern combined with painting in red and black paints was also discovered (Platform III, Fig. 69/8). Pear-shaped vessels with meander patterns from the same Dwelling IV are close to each others (Fig. 68/1,6). Spherical-bodied vessels are decorated with trichromatic painting. The main sequence (the dominant) of this pattern is formed by S-shaped helices with overlaying ends; serially arranged S-shaped helices serve as additional elements located between the ends of helices of the main sequence. All elements are connected to each others and to delimiting lines of decoration zones with arched and angular bands (Fig. 68/7, 9; 71/1). The bottom parts of some of the pear-shaped vessels are also similarly decorated (Fig. 68/6; 69/1). Unity of the ceramic assemblage of this dwelling is emphasized with one more important detail. Three denser groups of vessels can distinctly be seen in the diagrams provided by S.N.Bibikov ( 1959: 46, Fig. 1, 2). Vessel assortments in each of these groups are approximately identical and comprise all abovementioned varieties. In the ceramic assemblage of Platform III, a group of objects decorated with group style painting stands out. It comprises a vessel with a spherical body on a base-tray, a jug and a lid (Fig. 70/57). Three painted spherical vessels share a common structural feature, a break of the profile line in the lower part (Fig. 70/12). Patterns composed of helices with overlaying ends are in this case more sophisticated than in corresponding vessels from Dwelling IV: ends of the helices present two or three turns (Fig. 70/2, 8, 9; 72/2). Decorative pattern of a jug from Platform III (Fig. 70/9; 72/3), as well as that of a jug from Platform I (Fig. 71/2), also reveals changes that indicate a later-type style with respect to corresponding patterns in Dwelling IV vessels. The upper series of additional S-shaped helices is extended so as to occupy about a half of the decoration zone, i.e. more than the main series (the dominant) and the lower set of additional helices. The helices of the upper series also become more complicated: they disintegrate into separate elements or acquire forked ends. Thus, vessels from Platform III present quite a number of features characteristic for later types, which distinguishes the assemblage of this building from that of Platform IV. Material from Platform I is not so large in amount and has parallels in assemblages of buildings IV and III. A trichromatic painted beaker (Fig. 71/7) is decorated with running helices with trapezoid figures used as additional elements. This pattern is similar to the painting of the pear-shaped vessel from Building IV (Fig. 69/1). The bands of the beaker decorative patterns bear transversal strokes


A fragment of a similar vessel is also found in Platform I.

 41

grouped by threes and located in the points of intersection of the bands. These strokes are similar to those applied on the pot with incised decoration and on the spherical vessels with running helices found in Platform IV (Fig. 69/2; 68/8). Decoration of a jug (Fig. 71/2) reveals the same later features that are found in the jug from Platform III (Fig. 70/9). They include an enlargement of the upper additional series of helices with respect to the dominant, the main sequence of decorative figures that create the horizontal axis of symmetry of the pattern. The incised decoration of a bowl (Fig. 71/6) reminds of that of the vessel from Platform III (Fig. 70/11). The abovementioned fragment of a spherical vessel with a distinguished bottom part, similar to the series of spherical vessels from Platform III, is also found here. Several different interpretations of the distinctions between ceramic assemblages of the dwellings may be put forward. The first possible explanation lies in their nonsimultaneity. In this case, the material from Platform IV seems to be the earliest, and that of platform III, the latest one. The assemblage of Platform I occupies an intermediate position. However, earlier and later types of forms could coexist within the limits of the settlement assemblage. In this case, differences in vessels of assemblages of different buildings might be explained their specific functions (thus, for example, a significant series of pear-shaped vessels for storage of supplies in Building IV stands out among other materials). The distinctions can also reflect formation of settlement assemblage based on certain ceramic traditions of different origins. One of such traditions is related to trichromatic painted ceramics; another one, to ware with incised decorations; the third one, to vessels decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic painting. All above interpretation are acceptable, since distinctions between assemblages of different buildings could appear under a combined effect of several of specified causes. The question of relation of Jura settlement to NorthMoldavian CucuteniTripolye I sites remained disputable. Based on individual analogies, T.G.Movsha combined Jura and Drgueni settlements into a common local group ( 1985: 213). V.Ya.Sorochin, S.N.Ryzhov and V.A.Shumova also defined a single local variant of Jura-Drgueni type sites (Sorochin 1989: 4554; Sorochin 1990: 96; Sorochin 1994: 79; Sorochin 2002; , 1999). Association of these sites is mainly based on the territorial principle (i.e. a common territory of a conventionally defined geographical region of Pruth-Dniester interfluves), and on the formal similarity of certain objects. However, no more forcible proofs of such grouping of sites have been provided. The original character of Jura pottery assemblage was revealed in detailed exploration ( 1998b). Grounds for the site dating and for correlating it to studied North-Moldavian settlements (Drua I, Duruitoarea Nou I) are provided by the articles decorated with flutes combined with bichromatic red-and-white painting: pearshaped vessels and binoculars objects. They are found in platforms III and IV. The pear-shaped vessel with flutes stored in the stock of Institute of Archaeology of Ukrai-

nian National Academy of Sciences (Inv. 308, No. 105, Platform IV) has a different shape with respect to the main series of pear-shaped vessels: it has rather small a rim, and the bottom part of is body is not separated (Fig. 72/9). Presence of a bottom collar simulating a base-tray suggests that that this vessel might be a local imitation of NorthMoldavian samples that do not typically feature base-trays. The bottom part of an identical vessel is also found in Platform III. Similar articles are represented in sizeable series in North-Moldavian settlements: the share of vessels decorated with flutes in Drua and Drgueni can be as high as 40% (Crmaru 1977: 42; 1995: 58). Presence of vessels with flutes combined with bichromical painting is a distinctive feature of these sites; development of these decorations from incised ones, as well as the subsequent evolution towards bichromatic painting, can be illustrated by this material. This decorative tradition continues to exist up to the early Cucuteni AB period (Brnzeni IV, Solonceni II2, Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului); however, by this time, a gradual replacement of flutes with bichromatic drawings takes place, and a number of new decorative styles of groups , , , and , not represented in Jura, appear. Therefore, the fluted pear-shaped vessels that do not match the general context of the site pottery may be considered to be imitations that confirm the synchronism between Jura and North-Moldavian sites of Drua-Drgueni type. The same can be stated on binocular objects that were found in Jura platforms III and IV (Fig. 68/10). These items have direct analogs in North-Moldavian sites (Fig. 90/8). Binocular items, decorated with vertical flutes on their funnels and with horizontal ones on their bodies, are present in Drua I (up to 1015 items in each of the excavated dwellings), in Duruitoarea Nou, and in Drgueni (Crmaru 1977: Fig. 40/1-4); similar articles were also found in Vasilevka, in Jora de Sus, and in Brnzeni IV. Binocular objects of the same type continue to exist up to the beginning of Cucuteni AB period: they are present in Solonceni II2 and in Drgneti. The pattern composed of flutes distinguishes Jura binocular articles from the monocular object found in the same site and decorated with painting (Fig. 71/5). Assuming the similar functions of monocular and binocular items, this distinction may indicate that binocular items from Jura assemblage are of North-Moldavian origin. For example, in Drua and Duruitoarea Nou, identical decorations in both types of articles were observed. Connections with North-Moldavian sites are also indicated by the finds of isolated fragments with trichromatic painting containing thin longitudinal red nervure lines on white decorative bands. This painting is typical for Drua I, Drgueni and other sites located further to the North; it is however rare in Jura. The network pattern can also be deduced from certain geometrical patterns of Drgueni type sites (Fig. 72/4) (see also Crmaru 1977: Fig. 30/2; 31/1-2, 6). Thus, Jura site is chronologically quite comparable to North-Moldavian settlements containing large amounts of fluted pottery, which appears there as a result of natural development of assemblages. However, the series of such articles in Jura is small and distinct from the main part

of the assemblage. It also lacks connections with the rest of the pottery, which can be manifested either in similarity of design and details of forms, or in parallels of decor. Therefore, correlation of decoration groups with vessel forms in Jura, where the group of vessels with painted decoration prevails (Fig. 19), yields a completely different picture from what is seen in Drua and similar sites of Northern Moldova. In fact, Jura assemblage is mainly constituted by painted ware that essentially differs from North-Moldavian pottery, both in vessel forms (pear-shaped vessels with a distinguished bottom part, jugs with a ledge between the neck and the shoulders, etc.) and in decorations ( style featuring helical patterns with numerous connecting lines, etc.) It can also be seen in comparison of main pottery types found in North-Moldavian settlements and in Jura (Fig. 73). Drgueni and Drua articles decorated similarly to Jura pottery are found in small amounts, which confirms their chronological proximity. Thus, one of the beakers is decorated in Jura style, it also reproduces the helical pattern with additional straight lines and trapezoidal figures identical to those observed in Jura (Crmaru 1977: 82, Fig. 22/6). Patterns decorating two more vessels are also close to this style (Crmaru 1977: Fig. 25/8, 22/5). But their occurrence in the North-Moldavian region is accidental, as well as the occurrence of fluted pottery in Jura. Differences Jura from North-Moldavian settlements are also revealed in anthropomorphic plastic articles. Anthropomorphic female figures found in the settlement are decorated with painting rather than with incised patterns as their North-Moldavian analogs. One of them bears wellpreserved painting in white and black paints in -group style ( 1983: Fig. 10/1), others have no decoration at all (Fig. 72/7). Objects decorated with painting in -group style found in Platform III serve as one of chronological indicators that allow specifying the dating of the settlement and attributing jura as one of the latest sites of Cucuteni A period. Presence of this, generally later, style of painting on some vessels cannot provide a ground for attributing the site to the nexy period of Cucuteni AB, because the assemblage lacks the styles of groups and developed from trichromatic Cucuteni A painting that are typical for this time. The style is also found in two vessels from Brnzeni IV in Northern Moldavia that were located in a pit filled with bichromatic pottery (Fig. 44/14). Samples of this style were also encountered in Duruitoarea Nou I. In all these cases, vessels decorated in -group styles do not form significant series. Presence of a series of articles with incised decorations, mainly related to the assemblage of Platform IV, might indicate preservation of traditions of relief decoraAppearance of this decor type, as well as that of hatched painting with dark-brown paint over light-colored engobe (which is also found in sites of this time in insignificant amounts), may well be related to an influence of Transylvanian Petreti culture, wherein these styles are known in Petreti period (Paul 1995: 274278, pl. IIII).


 42

tion typical for earlier Cucuteni sites, as well as certain influences from Northern Moldavia and Eastern Tripolye. However, the shapes of vessels with incised decorations are similar to those of polychromatic pottery. The combination of different kinds of painted and relief decorations in the same objectthe jug from Platform III (Fig. 70/3)indicates not only their coexistence, but also the use of different methods by the same master. The closest analogs to Jura materials are found among pottery from Puricani, Bereti-Dealul Bulgarului and -Bzanului, the southernmost Cucuteni sites in Southern Pruth basin. Parallels can be seen both in forms and in decorations of vessels ornate in style, with trichromatic painting in patterns of white bands without nervures, bordered with black lines, and applied over red background field. Decor compositions are also analogous: they contain helices with overlaying ends or arranged in series, as well as the checkered motif (Dragomir 1980: 110114, Fig. 8; Dragomir 1967: 44, Fig. 4, 5; Dragomir 1982: 422423, Fig. 1/34, 2/59; Revue Roumaine 1984, issue 9: color inserts after pp. 24, 40; Dragomir 1991: Fig. 1517). Pattern parallels to Jura assemblage can also be traced in ceramics from Dumeti and other sites in Brlad river valley, such as Rafaila and Bleti (Maxim-Alaiba 1984; Maxim-Alaiba 1987: 271, Fig. 1415; Revue Roumaine 1984, issue 9: color inserts after pp. 40 48; PetrescuDmbovia, Dinu, Bold 1958: 130, Fig. 4/2,8; 6). Pottery from Scnteia settlement is also similar ( 1990). However the closet analogs to Jura materials are represented by finds from Horodca settlement located in Dniester-Pruth interfluves, exactly between Jura and Bereti. The site is currently being explored by S.Bodean (Bodean 2003) All mentioned settlements situated in the area of Brlad Plateau and Lower Pruth river belong to Southern clusters of Cucuteni sites located in Romanian counties of Bacu, Vaslui, and Galai (Fig. 3) (Cuco, Monah 1985: Fig. 1). All of them represent the latest phase of Cucuteni stage. This is indicated by decorative patterns of multi-curl S-shaped helices, either arranged serially or having reciprocally overlaying ends, with numerous additional elements consisting of fragments of helices or arched bands. Such patterns, also found in Jura, belong to later type styles. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to discuss local peculiarity of Southern Tripolye-Cucuteni sites in the Southern part of Middle Dniester Lands and at the territory of Brlad Plateau and Lower Pruth. Admittedly, the border between this local variant and the sites of Siret-Pruth interfluves located further to the North cannot yet be quite clearly defined, as the materials of sites excavated in the region has not yet been published and, therefore, duly introduced into the scholar circulation. Appearance of Jura settlement and its likes in Middle Dniester area might be attributed to arrival to the region of bearers of pottery traditions developed earlier in Lower Pruth Lands and in the South of Romanian Moldova. Unfortunately, no intermediate sites have so far been found in Pruth-Dniester interfluves, at the region of Pruth Plains and Kodry Heights.

 43

Not far away fro Jura, upon the Middle Dniester, there exist sites providing materials that allows reconstructing the subsequent development of pottery traditions featured there. In Popenki settlement, located slightly upstream at the same (left) bank of Dniester, excavation activities were limited to clearing of cuts and picking of gatherable material ( 1954: 105). The materials of this site comprise pottery fragments featuring later painting in group styles that are typical for Cucuteni stage. Styles of this group were also discovered in pottery from Solonceni II2 settlement, although in this case too, a significant number of vessels are decorated with trichromatic painting similar to that found in Jura (Fig. 74/12). Several beakers and binocular objects ornate with flutes combined with bichromatic painting were also found in Solonceni (Fig. 74/3). Ceramics with incised decorations also matches materials from Jura (Fig. 74/5) ( 1983: 4550, Fig. 12; 1965: 9496, Fig. 20; 1960: 242246, Fig. 7). Jura can be considered as one of the sites that started the development of Solonceni local variant of the period Cucuteni Tripolye II as defined by N.M.Vinogradova (settlements of Solonceni II2, Orheiul Veche, etc.). This was quite correctly noted by T.G.Movsha ( 1985: 212213). Composition of these assemblages is rather complicated and varied. Similarly to Jura assemblage, they contain, in addition to painted ware, pottery with incised decorations and with flutes combined with painting in white and red paints. Such multi-component structure may be attributed to the very position of these sites near the connecting water thoroughfare of Dniester river. Moreover, development of fishery and some discovered articles that are interpreted as models of boats suggest that Tripolye people had water transport ( 1926: 107111; 1937: 103107; 1951: 127131). While the origin of Jura settlement in Dniester Lands can be ascribed to the migration of population groups from Lower Pruth Lands, the question of formation of the Southern local variant in Romania remains essentially unanswered. The earlier stage of culture development in Brlad Plateau is reflected in materials from Poineti settlement. This site is situated upon Racova river in the basin of Upper Brlad (Vaslui county). Pottery published by R.Vulpe is analogous to the ware from Hbeti I settlement. It consists of bowls, beakers, bowls on high pedestals, monocular objects, pots, and spoons decorated with polychromatic painting. Painting typically features hatching with thin red lines in the interstices between helical patterns composed of wide white bands. The white bands are bordered with thin black lines. Decorative patterns are: running and serially arranged helices, waves, scallops, and slanted lines (Fig. 75/13) (Vulpe 1953: 257271, Fig. 2426, 2931, 3340). Apart from Hbeti, these patterns have their analogs in materials from sites located further to the North: Trueti and Badragii Vechi IX. Only two small vessels with rounded bottoms have no parallels in Cucuteni culture (Fig. 75/45, painting is not preserved) (Vulpe 1953: 261, Fig. 32/45); they, however, indicate the subsequent development of the roundbottom manufacturing tradition of painted pottery.

In Poineti, a special group is formed by pottery with incised decorations and flutes combined with rows of hollows, compared by the author of the excavation to ProtoCucuteni ceramics from Izvoare II1 (Vulpe 1953: 253255, Fig. 17, 19/1). It also has a wide range of correspondences in Cucuteni 123 sites (Hbeti, Cucuteni , Rusetii Noi, etc.). Based on painting parallels, Poineti may be compared to the settlements of the more Northern region of Moldavian Plain (basins of rivers Jijia and Bahlui). Unfortunately, lack of sufficiently comprehensive publications and researches does not allow for unambiguously relating this material to later ones. Thus, the problem of genesis of Bereti-Jura type sites belonging to the Southern local variant requires additional exploration. Jura and similar Bereti-type settlements in Pruth-Siret interfluves constitute the range of Cucuteni 4 sites located along the Southern borders of Tripolye-Cucuteni

area. They are characterized by the predominance of polychromatic painted pottery in their ceramic assemblages. A preliminary base of formation of this type of sites can be seen in the settlements of the preceding Cucuteni 3 phase similar to Poineti settlement situated in Brlad Plateau. In Lower Pruth region, sites of Tripolye BICucuteni period overlay the area of Bolgrad-Aldeni variant of Gumelnia culture that is generally attributed to earlier time (Manzura 1999: 149, Map 7.2, 7.3). However, this happens not at the borderline between Early and Middle Tripolye periods, but at the beginning of Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4 stage, when Bereti-type sites propagated to the South; so far, no earlier sites have been found in the region. Southward expansion of Cucuteni-Tripolye area at this precise stage is also confirmed by stratigraphy of Puricani site, where a Tripolye-Cucuteni settlement of Bereti type overlays a lower layer of Gumelnia culture (Dragomir 1980: 109).

4.3. Sites of Central Moldova and Carpathian Region

Material from most of the best-known sites of Cucuteni culture in Romania are described in publications on large-scale excavations of 193070s. Results of more recent researches are mostly not yet published, or just preliminary data on them are available. That is why this section mostly concentrates on the best-studied and the most fully published settlements that provide a basis for chronology of Moldavian and the Ukrainian sites. Romanian sites analogous to the settlements of Dniester-Pruth interfluves (those of Trueti-Cuconetii Vechi, DrgueniDrua, and Jura-Bereti types) were already mentioned in previous sections. This section only marks the main correspondences to the assemblages described above, since a development of a minute chronological distribution and of detailed local grouping of sites is, naturally, impossible if based solely on the available published sources. In Romania, the central part of Romanian Moldova located in Sireth-Pruth interfluves (near the present-day city of Iai) has been explored to the fullest extent. This area corresponds to the basin of river Bahlui, the righthand tributary of Jijia river. Site mapping of the region reveals on of the densest clusters of settlements (Fig. 3) (Cuco, Monah 1985: Fig. 1). It is there that the eponymic settlements near the village of Cucuteni-Biceni are located; they were explored by H.Schmidt in 19091910, and by M.Petrescu-Dmbovia in 19611962 (Schmidt 1932; Petrescu-Dmbovia 1965; Petrescu-Dmbovia 1966). The settlement of Hbeti I, repeatedly cited above, was excavated in 19491950 and became a reference site; its materials were fully published (Dumitrescu et al. 1954). Extensive papers were also presented on other sites, such as Ruginoasa, Topile, etc. (Dumitrescu H. 1933; Marinescu-Blcu 1977, etc.). In Hbeti I settlement, which was virtually completely excavated, 44 surface platform dwellings and 85 pits belonging to Cucuteni period were explored. One of the main distinctive features of the pottery assemblage of this settlement lies in its double-component structure. The set comprises two groups of ware: ceramics with relief (incised and fluted) decorations, and painted pottery. Besides the different decoration techniques, these groups of decorated ware also differ in firing conditions. Painted pottery was fired up to various shades of red and orange, which indicates the use of oxidizing firing environment. Ceramics with relief decorations is mostly dark-colored, i.e. fired in reducing environment, without access of oxygen. Kitchenware with surfaces covered with rough manual leveling is also present in the form of cauldrons, pithoi, jug-like vessels, and bowls. Firing of these items varied: different crocks may be both red or pink, and grey or black (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 595600, Table 23). The double-component structure of the ceramic assemblage of the settlement is also manifested in the differences of vessel forms. Ware with relief decorations (Fig. 76) is typically represented by bowls, beakers with rounded bodies and small rims or those with rounded bodies and distinct necks, jugs, pots, pear-shaped and some of the spherical vessels, as well as by lids with disc-shaped knobs and bodies consisting of two parts, a hemisphere and a truncated cone (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: Fig. 30/1b d, 3, 6a). These forms mostly correspond to those found in vessels from North-Moldavian sites of Tripolye BI/1: settlements similar to Trueti and Cuconetii Vechi. Application technique of the flutes, polishing and bordering with pinpoint hollows, as well as the aspect of incised decoration lines that are narrow and shallow (the compositions being often supplemented with series of pinpoint hollows), indicate a fairly early position of the site in the system of Cucuteni Tripolye I (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXIIILXVIII). These attributes were typical for the preceding Tripolye Precucuteni period (Marinescu-Blcu 1974: Fig. 5360; 1989: 89 103, Fig. 62, 6465). Painted ware is quantitatively prevailing in Hbeti (Fig. 77). Painting adorns bowls, jugs, pots, pedestaled
The available publication (Dumitrescu et al. 1954) does not allow for correlating ceramic finds to specific objects; therefore, one is forced to consider the materials collectively, limiting oneself to studying its qualitative characteristics.


 44

spherical vessels, spoons and ladles, and monocular objects (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: Fig. 30/1, 2, 5). Some of the forms of painted and relief-decorated ceramics of Hbeti assemblage are reciprocally duplicating, although a comparison of painted pottery both with reliefdecorated ware from the same settlement and with pottery forms of North-Moldavian sites reveals a certain originality of shapes of some of the articles. Necks of painted jugs and pots are emphasized with ledges; spherical vessels were made with high hollow pedestals, and beakers, with stem-like supports. Another typical form is represented by less-profiled, wide open beakers. Painted monocular pedestals are quite common (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXIV/1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11). Thus, it can be concluded that both groups, i.e. those of painted and reliefdecorated ware, that reflect two different pottery traditions coexist within the same assemblage, relatively independently of each other. Among the compositions of painted decor found in Hbeti pottery, there are prototype samples that suggest a fairly early dating of the site in the framework of Cucuteni periodization. They are primarily represented by the patterns composed of arch-shaped figures oriented towards each others that can be traced back to snake-like figures of Precucuteni ceramics. In trichromatic decorations, they are usually done in red or brown; interstices between the figures form negative white S-shaped helices (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXVI/45; LXXVII/12; LXXIV/1; LXXXV/1, etc.) This provides for a possible reversibility of these patterns, where the significant part of the composition can also be formed by the helical motif. Such potential reversibility is also emphasized by the reverse order of colors found in a number of patterns (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXV/1). Patterns thus composed of running and serially arranged helices are also to be rather frequently found in Hbeti pottery (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXV/1, 4, 5, 6; LXXVI/8; LXXXV/1,2; XCII/1). Decorative patterns also become more complicated: auxiliary elements (teardrop-shaped figures or unitary helices) are added; several series of helices may be located within a single decoration zone (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXXVII/3). The process of stylization of snake-shaped patterns can be revealed both in the group of relief-decorated pottery and in that of painted ceramics. The most frequently found stylization of helical pattern takes form of fluted Tangentenkreisband motifs (Fig. 53/2, 4, 7; Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXIII/2, 4, 16, LXIV/23, LXVI/8, LXVII/1 2). The same situation is found in painting, where helical patterns may sometimes be stylized down to circles interconnected with straight-line fragments of bands (Fig. 81/17, 18; Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. XCII/2, 6, C/11). Painting also contains wave motifs (Fig. 81/4,16; Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. LXXV/3). Sizeable sets of Hbeti pottery are also formed by painted vessels with patterns made up of geometrical helices, diamonds and scallops. These patterns were examined in much detail in a paper by A.Niu (Niu 1969: 2536). The prevalence of painted pottery and its originality, manifested both in the distinction of forms and in decora-

 45

tive patterns, allow to reveal local distinction of this site and other similar settlements. Differences between reliefdecorated and painted ware suggest that the ceramic assemblage was not only formed under the influence of two different pottery traditions, but might even reflect a dualcomponent structure of population of the village. The likeness of pottery groups with relief decorations, found Hbeti-like painted vessels, and similar stylization processes seen in development of decorative motifs allow to synchronize North-Moldavian settlements of Cuconetii Vechi-Trueti with this site. Ceramic assemblage of Topile settlement located in Siret basin is similar to that of Hbeti. In 1969, ditches partially uncovered here the remnants of 7 platform dwellings and three household pits (Marinescu-Blcu 1977). Painted pottery dominated the set (Marinescu-Blcu 1977: 135, Fig. 5, 6/13,5, 810). Only one beaker fragment is decorated with incised lines (Marinescu-Blcu 1977: 135, Fig. 6/3). The eponymic settlement of Cucuteni-Cetuia (Schmidt 1932; Petrescu-Dmbovia 1965; PetrescuDmbovia 1966) also belongs to the same type of sites. The pottery assemblage of the settlement presents virtually the same range of forms and decors of vessels as Hbeti I (Schmidt 1932: 25, abb. 45, taf. 210, 11/5). The similarity is further emphasized by the presence of a similar separate group of ware with reliefincised and fluted decorations (Schmidt 1932: taf. 10, 11/5). During the excavations of 1961, M.Petrescu-Dmbovia registered the existence of two chronological levels that correspond to Cucuteni 23 and 3 according to Vl.Dumitrescus periodization (Petrescu-Dmbovia 1965: 166168). A Cucuteni layer was found in Cucuteni-Dmbul Morii (Petrescu-Dmbovia 1965: 168). Similar materials were discovered in Ruginoasa settlement, which apparently corresponds to the later level of Cucuteni-Cetuia (Dumitrescu H. 1933; Niu 1980: 61, Fig. 1), as well as in Poineti situated in Brlad Plateau (described in the previous section). Specificity of pottery assemblages of these settlements is manifested, first of all, in the prevalence of painted ceramics, as well as in specific features of vessel shapes and decorative compositions. It allows postulating a local specificity of sites similar to Hbeti I and Cucuteni located in Central Moldova in Romania. These sites correspond to the time of existence of Trueti-Cuconetii Vechi type settlements in Northern Moldavia. The analogous painted pottery indicates that Jora de Sus settlement in Pruth-Dniester interfluves, excavated by V.Ya.Sorochin ( 1993b; Sorochin 1996), can be considered a Hbeti-type site. Two levels were defined in the stratigraphy of the site; one of them is represented by dugouts and the other one, by platforms (Sorochin 1996: 10, 18). Most ceramic materials correspond to Hbeti pottery: these are trichromatic vessels painted with wide white bands and hatching of the decorative field with thin red lines (Fig. 80/1) (Sorochin 1996: 1516, Fig. 5), as well as the pottery with polished flutes bordered with series of hollows (Fig. 80/910) (Sorochin 1996: 15, Fig. 4/2). On the other hand, the settlement also contains pottery with flutes combined with red painting. It com-

prises fragments of a beaker and those of a pear-shaped vessel (Fig. 80/45), and a binocular object analogous to articles from Cuconetii Vechi and Drua I (Sorochin 1996: Fig. 4/13). This might indicate both links between Jora de Sus and North-Moldavian settlements of Cuconetii Vechi type and chronological differences between the two building levels. V.Ya.Sorokin also attributes the settlement of Rusetii Noi I situated in the South of Pruth-Dniester interfluves, at the bank of Botna river, to Hbeti-type sites (Sorochin 1997: 65). In 19621964, it was excavated by V.I.Marchevici on an area of 308sq.m. Excavation resulted in revealing several occupation layers including those of linear-band pottery culture and of Tripolye culture. Two levels were distinguished in Tripolye layer: one of them is related to Tripolye (dugouts 12 and a household pit), and the other one belongs to Tripolye BI (two clay platforms). Both levels were organically connected and not divided with sterile strata ( 1970: 56 et seq.). A specific feature of Tripolye BI ceramic assemblage of Rusetii Noi is the presence of numerous Early Tripolye features in relief-decorated pottery. This concerns both vessel shapes (such as pot-like beakers and lids with mushroom-shaped knobs) and decorations, such as incised patterns of snake-like arcs supplemented with series of dots and polished flutes bordered with hollows and combined with surfaces painted with ochre (Fig. 81/47, 9) ( 1970: 66-67, Fig. 14/12, 67, 10, 14). The assemblage comprises a significant amount of ceramic articles imported from Gumelnia culture ( 1970: 68). Painted pottery is analogous to that represented in Hbeti (Fig. 81/23; 1970: 67, Fig. 14/45, 13, 1516). The next chronological horizon of Central-Moldavian sites cannot yet be quite clearly defined. Fedeleeni settlement belongs to the final stage of Cucuteni . However, the limited amount of published materials (Berciu 1954) does not allow examining the materials originating from this site in much detail. An essentially late dating of the site is suggested by found shell-tempered ceramic objects of Cucuteni type (Nestor, Zaharia 1968: 1743, Fig. 1/2), which also becomes widespread in North-Moldavian sites of Drgueni-Drua type at this time (see Section 7.3). New openings for further exploration of the site group under consideration are provided by the materials from the settlement of Rezina located in Ungeni District of Moldavia. It was excavated in 1995 by V.M.Bikbaev. The complexity of helical patterns (similar to that found in Jura) and presence of vessels of Cucuteni type apparently indicate a fairly late dating of the site within the limits of Cucuteni period. Originality of Cucuteni settlements in Carpathian Region was frequently mentioned by Romanian scholars.
Materials of both levels are partially intermixed: fragments of polychromatic painted pottery were also found at the floor of an Early Tripolye dugout. I.V.Melnichuk who processed the settlement ceramics in 1980s and early 1990s surmised that both levels could form a common occupation layer belonging to Tripolye BI period. Unfortunately, however, her studies have never been continued.


 46

Among these sites, the settlement of Izvoare is to be noted in the first place. Its stratigraphy was used as a base for defining both the Precucuteni culture (layers Izvoare I1 and I2), and a number of consecutive phase of Cucuteni period (layers II1 and II2). However, division of layer II into the two levels is mostly based on the material typology and, therefore, is rather conventional (see Vulpe 1957: 353354). The typologically later group is constituted by a number of articles with patterns composed of multi-curl helices with additional elements of fragments of arcs and helices, similar to those found in Bereti, Jura, and Dumeti, i.e. sites belonging to the final part of Cucuteni period (Fig. 78/8, 1011) (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 139/1, 150, 170/3, 172/1,177/1, 184185, 188/3, 192/12). This suggests that a part of the site materials may be attributed to Cucuteni 4 time according to Vl.Dumitrescus system, which casts some doubts upon the earlier stratigraphic observations. This hypothesis complies fairly well with A.Nius conclusions on attributing Izvoare II2 layer to the time of the final part of Cucuteni (Niu 1980: 18, Fig. 1). Trichromatic pottery from Izvoare II1ab is mostly similar to that originating from Hbeti and from other sites of Central Moldova. Its originality is manifested in a series of vessels wherein decorative helices are painted with red or brown, rather than white, paint, and the decoration background field is white (Vulpe 1957: 156, Fig. 137; 143; 153; 166; 175; pl. VI/12, etc.) Pottery with relief (incised and fluted) decoration is also present and includes jugs, beakers, bowls, and pots. Relief decor is mostly supplemented with painting of decoration fields with red and white paints. This group is closely related to bichromatic pottery that represents one of the main distinctive features of the site, as well as of other settlements in Carpathian Region (Fig. 78/67) (Vulpe 1957: 120122). Special features of Izvoare ceramic assemblage, similarly to other Carpathian sites, consist of the presence of a peculiar ceramics decorated with early-type bichromy, i.e. with painting in thin white lines over red or brown background (Fig. 78/23, 45). This type of painting is entirely different from the later bichromy of NorthMoldavian site as described above, which originates from painted relief decorations. The early-type bichromy was found in wide open, less-profiled beakers, truncated-coneshaped bowls, hemispherical lids with disc-shaped knobs, and in pots with ledges between necks and shoulders (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 88/1, 3, 5; 89/1; 9294; 97; 98, 99/3; 101; 103105, 108/13, 6; 111/3; 112/2). It is frequently applied along with incised patterns and with wide and shallow polished flutes. Compositions rendered in earlytype bichromy style consist of differently oriented arcshaped figures and their derivatives in the form of Tangentenkreisband and geometrical patterns. Analogs to this pottery, both in vessel forms (pots, lids, and beakers) and in decorations, are represented in the sites belonging to Bolgrad-Aldeni group of Gumelnia culture (Dragomir 1983: 9091, Fig. 23/1415; 29; 38/12,4; 1983: Fig. 3233; 35/12, 68; 41/9). Assemblages of other Carpathian settlementssuch as Frumuica (Fig. 79; Matas 1946), Trpeti IV (Ma-

rinescu-Blcu 1981), Calu (Vulpe 1941)are also close to Izvoare II1. Extensive ceramic materials were provided by the multi-layer site of Poduri; however, so far it was only represented in preliminary publications (Monah, Antonescu, Bujor 1980; Monah, Cuco, Popovici, Antonescu 1982, etc.). The time of all these settlements corresponds to that of Hbeti-type sites of Central Moldova belonging to the phases of Cucuteni 12Cucuteni 3 according to Vl.Dumitrescus system. Their specificity is also determined by the influence of Bolgrad-Aldeni group of Gumelnia culture, revealed in the group of bichromatic pottery (Istoria Romniei 1960: 65). Thus, in accordance with Vl.Dumitrescu (1974), one can define two local

groups of sites that existed in Central Moldova: the central group (sites similar to Hbeti I and Fedeleeni) and the Western, or Carpathian, group (sites similar to Izvoare II and Frumuica). Romanian researchers also distinguish local specificity of sites located in South-Eastern Transylvania, those of Ariud VII type, and define a special local variant for them (Zoltn 1987; Istoria Romniei 1960: 65; Dumitrescu et al. 1983: 111, etc.) Based on the, highly incomplete, published materials on the sites of this region (Lszl 1924; Zoltn 1951a; Zoltn 1951b; Zaharia, Galbenu, Zoltn 1982), one can only establish their similarity to Carpathian settlements.

4.4. Sites of Bug Lands and Bug-Dniester interfluves

Sites of the so-called Borisovka type, situated in Bug Lands and in the Bug-Dniester interfluves, have long been attributed to Early Tripolye, because most of them, to the exception of Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I (where series of imported Hbetitype painted pottery were found), lack the main marker of Tripolye BI period: trichromatic painted ceramics ( 1949: 3641). This opinion was subsequently reconsidered ( 1975). Development of ceramic assemblages of sites belonging to the Eastern part of Tripolye are during the period BI is characterized in that it preserves certain attributed of the preceding period Tripolye , which correspond to the respective moments of separation of population groups from the main body. This preserving of types and a strict reproduction of prototypic forms ( 1990: 1011) is manifested in pottery ornate with incised and fluted decorations. Isolated features of Early Tripolye traditions are revealed in assemblages of sites in Bug Lands and Bug-Dniester interfluves up to the time of Tripolye II. Striking examples of preservation of such vestiges are provided by decorative patterns of certain vessels from Klischevo (, 1992: Fig. 42/24, Table 4). In revealing real chronological correspondences, an especially important role is played by determination of imported pottery, which is, unfortunately, rather scarce and far from being found in all sites. In the South of Middle Bug Lands, a separate group of sites is formed by the settlements of Sabatinovka I and Berezovskaya GES. Excavations were carried out near the village of Sabatinovka by P.V.Kharlampovich and T.M. Movchanovski in 1932, and by A.V.Dobrovolski in 193839 and in 194748 ( 1932: 7174; 1952; collections of Odessa Archaeological Museum and stock of Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Coll. P/75). Berezovskaya GES settlement was studied by V.N.Danilenko in 1958 (stock of Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Coll. P/315) and, subsequently, by V.P.Tsyveskov ( 1964; 1971; 1975; collections of Odessa Archaeological Museum). Recently, the settlement was excavated by E.V.Tsvek ( 1991; 1993; 2003, etc.). The insufficient amount of published materials and the small size of collections stored in the stock of Institute of Archaeology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine that we were able to examine do not allow one to speculate on any clear distinctions between the ceramic assemblages of these sites. Series of Cucuteni-imported articles are in both sites represented by scarce polychromatic painted pottery: fragments of vessels, predominantly beakers, decorated with helical or meandering patterns formed by wide white bands bordered with thin black lines. The decoration background field is mostly hatched with thin red lines (Fig. 82/13; 83/69) ( 1933: 8384, Table 37; 1952: Table II/13; 1949: Fig. 20/110). Apart from the decor, this pottery is distinguished by its clay mixture (the lack of sand admixtures that are typical for the rest of ceramics) and by oxidizing firing, which supplied it with light-yellowish tint. The articles are analogous to the pottery from the settlement of Hbeti I in Romanian Moldova and similar sites. Ware of the same type was also found in Trueti, Badrajii Vechi and Darabani. Thus, the represented series provide for a sufficiently adequate association of the mentioned Bug settlements to the sites of Western territories of Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 13 period. Besides, painted pottery with decorative patterns composed of multi-coil helices, similar to that from Jura, was also discovered in Berezovskaya GES ( 2003: 115, Fig. 4/57). These finds comply with the conclusions made by V.P.Tsybeskov and E.V.Tsvek on several occupation layers being present in the site ( 1971; 2003: 115). So, the upper levels of Berezovskaya GES might correspond to the time of Jura and Beresti, which belong to Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4 period. Rough-surface pottery from Sabatinovka I and Berezovskaya GESdeep cauldron-bowls, barrel-shaped pithoi and large-sized potsis sometimes decorated with modeled-on figures ( 1952: Fig. 2; 1976: Fig. 2). Ware with fluted and incised decorations is represented by pear-shaped vessels, lids with mushroom-shaped knobs, bowls (including bowls on hollow cylindrical pedestals), monocular objects, pots, and beakers (Fig. 82/414; 83/15) ( 1971: Fig. 5; 2003: Fig. 3/14). This group of pottery is dominated by articles fired in reducing environment, similarly to Early Tripolye ceramics. The originality of relief-decorated pottery is manifested in beakers. Sabatinovka I features pot-like beakers

 47

with elevated shoulders, small exverted rims and concave bottoms. They typically bear decorations composed of polished flutes combined with impressions of comb-shaped dies or with hollows that form horizontal and voluteshaped compositions. The background field between the flutes is frequently painted with red ochre. Decorative dies that were used in adorning exactly this type of products were also found in the site ( 1933: Table 40/12). Similar pot-like beakers also prevail in Berezovskaya GES; some of them have base-trays ( 1976: Fig. 1). They are also decorated with polished flutes combined with die impressions (Fig. 82/45, 11; 83/12, 4). This form is typical for Early TripolyePrecucuteni III (Marinescu-Blcu 1974: Fig. 54/4, 56/6; Niu 1955: Fig. 110; 1993: Fig. 1 et al.) It makes a chronological indicator of Tripolye BICucuteni A; it was found to the West of Pruth river in settlements of Hbeti I type (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 278280, pl. LXIII/12,5, LXV/1), i.e. in sites of the former half of the period. Beakers with cylindrical necks and rounded bodies are also represented in Sabatinovka I and Berezovskaya GES. The neck is usually marked with series of flutes. The body may bear vertical and slanted flutes or more complex compositions of circles and diamonds (Fig. 82/9 10; 83/5). Shape of these articles is close to those from North-Moldavia sites similar to Cuconetii Vechi and Trueti, described above. Flutes combined with pinpoint hollows and surface painting with ochre also adorn jugs and pots from Berezovskaya GES (Fig. 82/1314). Bowls and pear-shaped vessels are covered with incised decorations (Fig. 82/8) ( 1971: Fig. 5). Archaic snake-like patterns are present in Berezovskaya GES settlement (Fig. 82/8; 83/3) ( 1993: Fig. 4/5). Pattern lines are typically filled with white paste; individual portions of the surface are also frequently painted with ochre. Strikingly absent are binocular articles; it is possible that monocular objects found in Berezovskaya GES settlement were used instead of them ( 1984). Rare forms are represented by a tetrahedral vessel ( 1967). The settlement of Borisovka located in Middle Bug Lands, which gave its name to the Borisovka type of Eastern Tripolye sites, was excavated by M. Belyashevski in 19041905 and in 1925. Four pit-dwellings were uncovered in Borisovka site (i 1926b). Materials of this excavation is currently stored in State Historical Museum of Ukraine, Kiev (Collection 47). Prospecting of the site was carried out by T.S.Passeks Tripolye expedition in 1949 ( 1961: 79). Borisovka ceramic assemblage mostly comprises fragments of vessels; their shapes are therefore far from being always recoverable. Incised decorations adorn pear-shaped vessels, bowls, and binocular objects ( 1949: Fig. 8/2, 8/4; i 1926: . XVI/3; Passek 1935, pl. VI/7). Some vessels are on hollow base-trays (i 1926, . XVI/11). Incised lines are often filled with white paste, and spaces between them are painted with red ochre (Fig. 84/7) ( 1961: 80). Beakers are decorated with flutes; impressions of toothed dies are applied along the flute edges, sometimes supple-

 48

ments with ochre painting. Compositions predominantly consist of slanted or vertical flutes; in rarer cases they may form helical or fishbone patterns (Fig. 84/46) ( 1949: Fig. 9/19; i 1926a: . XVI/1316; Passek 1935: pl. VI/8). The collections include both pot-shaped beakers (with low rims) and articles with high cylindrical necks emphasized with series of horizontal flutes (Passek 1935: pl. VI/8). Pottery assemblage of Pechora settlement published by K.K.Chernysh ( 1959) is close to that of Borisovka. The collection contains pear-shaped vessels, lids with mushroom- and disc-shaped knobs, bowls, pots (some of them on base-trays) and binocular objects, decorated with incised lines. Beakers are ornate with flutes combined with die impressions and, in some cases, with ochrepainted surfaces (Fig. 87/8) ( 1959: 168173, Fig. 5, 7). The so-called kitchenware with rough surfaces is also present ( 1959: 178). In addition to Pechora and Borisovka, a wide range of Tripolye BI settlements discovered in Middle Bug Lands as a result of archaeological prospecting should be mentioned: Ulanovka, Gunchi, Ladyzhinskie Khutora, and Chizhovka ( 1956; 1989). The settlement of Zarubintsy apparently represent the analog to the earlier stage of Tripolye BI in Bug-Dniester interfluves. E.V.Tsvek explored there a dwelling that combines a surface clay structure with a dug-out part ( 1980: 164). Found pear-shaped vessels, pots, bowls, and binocular object are ornate with incised decoration, its lines being in many cases filled with white paste, with spaces between them sometimes painted with ochre ( 1980: 165, Fig. 1/4,68,10). Beakers are decorated with flutes that are mostly supplemented with toothed-die impressions ( 1980: 167, Fig. 1/13). Kitchenware includes cauldrons with rough rusticated surfaces ( 1980: Fig. 1/11). Ceramic assemblage characteristics of this site are close to those of Pechora and Borisovka ( 1980: 167). Krasnostavka settlement was studied in 1940 by a section of Tripolye Expedition lead by E.Yu.Krichevski. A dugout and a clay platform were excavated ( 1957). In 19741975, another platform was excavated by E.V.Tsveks expedition ( 1980: 167172). Krasnostavka is a chronological counterpart of North-Moldavian settlements of Drua-Duruitoarea Nou type. This can be established by imported pottery: a fragment of a bichromatic painted vessel (most probably, a small beaker) found in Dwelling I excavated by E.V.Tsvek. Such finds are not isolated: they were also encountered in prospecting holes and among E.Yu.Krichevskis materials ( 1980: 171). Shell-tempered ceramics of Cucuteni C type is also represented among the site materials (Fig. 103/7) ( 1980: 170, Fig. 2/13; 1957: 32, 34). The base of Krasnostavka pottery assemblage is constituted by articles decorated with incised lines and flutes. Incised decor is provided in pear-shaped vessels and in lids with disc-shaped knobs ( 1957: Fig. 6/7, 14; 1980: 168, Fig. 2/2). Pear-shaped vessels may be found with or without marked rims ( 1980: 168). Their patterns of negative running helices and waves are similar to decoration of vessels found in

Cuconeti Vechi (Passek 1935: pl. VI/12). Bowls and binocular objects are also ornate with incised decorations (Fig. 87/12; 1980: Fig. 2/1,3,5; Passek 1935: pl. VI/34). Incised lines have been found to be filled with white paste ( 1980: 168170). One of the bowls bears a composition of scallops with spaces between them filled with slanted lines (Fig. 84/2) ( 2003: Fig. 4/12). In Cuconeti Vechi, similar pattern in bowls was only found in lower zones of decoration. Therefore, the decoration of the Krasnostavka bowl, where the main zone is not present, may represent a later type. Original decorative pattern is presented in a jug from E.Yu.Krichevskis excavation: parallel lines with pinpoint hollows between them form a wave motif on the body ( 1957: Fig. 8). The schematic character of the patter, along with the shift of handles with respect to the decoration zone of the body, also indicate that this article belongs to a later type. Beakers are decorated with flutes ( 1957: Fig. 7/814; 1980: 2/10,14). According to E.V. Tsveks information, articles with flutes supplemented with die impression or hollows are less numerous in Krasnostavka than in earlier sites. Number of such vessels here is twice lower than of those with flutes without die impressions ( 1980: 170). Onoprievka settlement also belongs to the final part of Tripolye BICucuteni period (, 1990), but materials from excavation of this site have not yet been published. The settlement of Ozarintsy-Popov Gorod located upon Nemia river, a left-hand tributary of Dniester, also belongs to Eastern Tripolye sites. In 1929, limited-scale excavation of the site was carried out by M.Rudinski ( 1930: 238239). According to published materials, incised decorations ornate here pear-shaped vessels and lids with disc-shaped knobs, bowls and binocular objects ( 1930: Fig. 1315, 16/4, 8, 11). Massive handles might belong to jugs ( 1930: Fig. 14/4; 15/15). M.Rudinski notes the painting, widespread (or, possibly, compulsory) in Popov Gorod pottery, wherein red paint was filling the background and the even-surfaced interstices between the lines that were colored with

white paint or filled with white paste ( 1930: 245). The employed technique and the decorative patterns make incised decorations composed of grooved lines and flutes of Ozarintsy pottery quite similar to the decoration of ceramics found in Cuconetii Vechi and Ttruca Nou III. Fluted beakers from Ozarintsy form two series. One of them is similar to the articles from Cuconeti Vechi and Novaya Tatrovka III. Vertical or slanted flutes are provided on the bodies of these beakers; the necks are decorated with rows of horizontal flutes. Horizontal flutes also mark out bottom parts ( 1930: Fig. 20). The other series is formed by fragments of items, wherein polished flutes are combined with toothed-die impressions or hollows ( 1930: Fig. 2122). It is related to beakers from Bug Lands sites. Ozarintsy materials also includes rough-surface pottery ( 1930: 240). Painted ware was not found in this site. Eastern Tripolye sites (the term coined by E.V.Tsvek) are quite peculiar. First of all, painted pottery is not typical for their ceramic assemblages. Exceptions to this rule are only represented in imported articles that are few in number. On the other hand, pottery of these settlements preserves certain features of the preceding Tripolye APrecucuteni period, as manifested by specific details of vessel forms and decors, as well as of pottery technologies. Nevertheless, we do not believe that these specific features provide sufficient ground for distinguishing the settlements of this region belonging to Tripolye BI period as a special Eastern Tripolye culture ( 1989; 1990). Relied decorations of Eastern Tripolye pottery generally match the patterns found in ware from North-Moldavian settlements. Relief-decorated vessels are also preserved during Cucuteni A period in ceramic assemblages of sites in the Western site of Tripolye-Cucuteni area, in Siret-Pruth interfluves, such as Hbeti. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider these settlements in the framework of the Eastern local variant of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, especially since the originality of Eastern Tripolye sites was manifested to a much greater extent during the next period: that of Tripolye BII.

 49

CHAPTER 5. PERIODIZATION AND LOCAL VARIANTS OF TRIPOLYE BI SITES

5.1. Main stages of culture development in Tripolye BICucuteni period

Detailed examination of materials from all available sites allows us to reconsider the applicability of periodization as suggested by Vl.Dumitrescu (Dumitrescu 1963) based on materials from sites of Romanian Moldova, to the entire area of the culture (, 1982: 174, 194201, Tables 9, 10). The total number of stages (or, in Vl.Dumitrescus terms, phases) within the period of Cucuteni Tripolye BI is then reduced, which complies with the trend that was already marked by A.Niu. He suggested dividing the period into three, rather than four, phases (Niu 1980; see also Mantu 1998). Certainly, a periodization that is established for an entire culture should primarily reflect fundamental changes in materials that affect all of its area. A more minute division is only admissible in relative chronologies of sites within individual local groups. The most complicated situation is encountered where one deals with the earliest sites that mark the border between Early and Developed Tripolye periods. Unfortunately, even when using the totality of available materials, we are unable to find substantial enough grounds for distinguishing theses sites into a special chronological stage. An indicator of the earliest Cucuteni sites is since Izvoare excavation traditionally seen in the presence of pottery decorated with early-type bichromy (Vulpe 1956; Vulpe 1957). However, many of Romanian scholars noted that this type of pottery is always found in assemblages accompanied by polychromatic ceramics (Marinescu-Blcu 1981). Besides, its occurrence is limited to the Carpathian region alone (Izvoare II1, Trpeti IV, and other similar sites). It means that the early-type bichromy represents a local, rather than a chronological, indicator. In many sites, appearance of polychromatic painting is also unfit to be used as a chronological indicator, since it happens in different times in different parts of the culture area. In such cases, synchronization is based on imported items of painted ware and on analogies in relief-decorated pottery (see 1975b). Therefore, taking the appearance of painted pottery to be the initial starting point of the period, and developing a system of synchronisms, one can only outline two stages within the Tripolye BICucuteni period. The first of these stages corresponds to Vl.Dumitrescus phases Cucuteni 12 and 3; the other one, to the phase Cucuteni 4. Characteristic features of these stages correspond to ceramic assemblages of the entire culture area. Pottery assemblages of sites belonging to Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 13 stage are characterized in that many Early Tripolye features are preserved in the articles. These features include a range of archaic forms, such as potlike beakers with spherical bodies and small, exverted rims, as well as the lids with disc- or mushroom-shaped knobs installed on high necks, that can be traced back to Early Tripolye prototypes. In addition to painted pottery that appears in the zone located to the West of Dniester river, relief-decorated ware is also preserved virtually throughout the entire area (including the Western part thereof). Similarly to Early Tripolye, fluted and incised patterns are in many cases applied over dried surfaces and can be combined with polishing, impressions of toothed dies or series of small-sized hollows. The same archaisms are also present in compositions of helical patterns, their designs being directly derived from common prototypes, snake-shaped motifs that can be observed in pottery from PrecucuteniTripolye sites. It should however be mentioned that such patterns were not always rendered in traditional relief technique; they were also imitated in painting. Several important innovations are introduced in the early stage; the most remarkable of them is the appearance of bi- and polychromatic painting in ceramics. Pottery technologies also undergo changes in firing conditions that are related to this innovation: most of painted Tripolye BICucuteni ceramics was fired in oxidizing environment rather than in reducing one as had been typical for Precucuteni pottery. This affects the color of finished products, which, in its turn, predetermines the color spectrum of painting. Introduction of new decor varieties results in formation of multi-component assemblages that comprise both painted pottery and that with traditional relief decorations, typical for the preceding period. This makes ceramic ware found within individual assemblages to be widely varied in shapes and decoration types. Local distinctions between different assemblages are not yet as strikingly manifested at the time as in the subsequent stage. During Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4 stage, archaic pottery shapes disappear. Beakers with cylindrical necks (so-called bomb-shaped ones), truncated-cone-shaped bowls, and lids with disc-shaped knobs, but without clearly distinguished necks, become the predominant forms. A new specific composite form, that of two-tiered vessels, deComposite forms were also present earlier, during the period of PrecucuteniTripolye (which is vividly illustrated by the main principle of shape composition out of standardized elements). However, two-tiered vessels of Tripolye BI are rather specific; their decoration and the methods used to manufacture their elements allow to determine the initial forms clearly enough.


 50

rived from pear-shaped (in the lower part) and spherical (in the upper part) ones, appear in a number of sites from Pruth-Dniester interfluves. Helmet-shaped lids, still few in number, also constitute a new form: some examples where the decoration pattern is transferred from disc-shaped knobs to flat surfaces of the lids (Brnzeni IV) suggest that these articles may be considered as derived from lids with discshaped knobs. In the Western part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area (Carpathian region and Central Moldova), relief-decorated ware is being replaced by painted pottery. Technique of relief decoration changes, too: archaic types of incised and fluted patterns disappear (along with rows of hollows and impressions of toothed dies), incised decorative lines and flutes become wider and are applied over wetter surfaces. Polishing of flutes and interstices between incised lines, quite widespread in the preceding stage, is being replaced with coating vessel surfaces with engobe.

In addition to innovations in decoration techniques, common changes in composition of decors, both painted and relief, take place throughout the area of the culture. These changes are characterized by ever growing estrangement from the initial prototypes ( 1999: 155). Standardization of pottery forms and decorations, which takes place within various territorial groups, represents one of the characteristic features of the period. Of course, the mentioned criteria used as a base for defining the two stages within the period of Tripolye BICucuteni are the most general ones (Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 13 and Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4). They can be applied to ceramic assemblages of sites occupying a major part of the culture area, although they are varied in different local groups of these sites. Each of these groups is distinguished by having developed its own peculiar pottery tradition.

5.2. Tripolye-Cucuteni area: zones of prevailing painted or relief-decorated pottery, and additional criteria for zone definition
Starting from as early as 1970s, most researchers have been noting differences between Western and Eastern parts of Tripolye-Cucuteni area (Dumitrescu 1974a; 1975; 1975; 1980, 1989, 2003; 1993, etc.) The main criterion on which this division is founded is the predominance of painted pottery in assemblages of sites located to the West of Dniester river, and the prevalence of incised-decoration ceramics in regions situated further to the East. However, this criterion is not always valid in Tripolye BI period, the more so during its earlier stage. This holds especially true when it is used for comparison of formal indicators alone. At the time, sets of pottery forms are still largely similar throughout the entire area of the culture, and both painted and relief-decorated articles are widespread in a major part of the territory. That is why a number of additional criteria have to be used. These can be provided for instance by series of some characteristic finds distinctly located within the limits of one of the marked zones. Such items are represented by ceramic monocular and binocular objects in the form of, respectively, one or two hollow tubes supplied with connectors. Possibility of their use as local indicators was already noted by Vl.Dumitrescu (1974). Function of these objects has not been so far clearly understood. There exist several versions of their interpretation. The simplest explanation, derived from the existence of a wide range of vessels on high hollow pedestals, suggests that they were used as supports for smaller vessels, such as beakers or bowls ( 1907: 25; 1949: 3942). However, most scholars currently believe that these articles had purely religious functions. This opinion originates from the researches of 1920s ( 1926: 149150). B.A.Rybakov attempted to specify
In one exceptional case, even a trinocular object was found. It was discovered in Floteti V settlement, which is attributed to Cucuteni B1 period ( 1990: 166168, Fig. 1), and might represent one of later variations of traditional binocular objects.


 51

the function of binocular objects as vessels for giving the soil water to drink. He noted the absolute matching of painting on binocular funnels to that on goblets [=bowl I.P.] for conjuring, which makes up a common set of objects related to water magic ( 1965: 1617, Fig. 28, 29). However, the analogy in painting of a binocular object and bowls was only traced in a single object (Vladimirovka). This article is also typologically attributed to a later time (Tripolye BII): decoration transfer is rarely found and is related to the common design of bowls and funnels of binocular objects, rather than with a common function. Therefore, this hypothesis appears to be ill-founded. Alternative points of view also exist. P.M.Kozhin notes the connection between religious and practical functions of vessels and assumes that these models [] could reproduce large-sized tubs (that might initially have been wooden only, as suggested by structural features of some of the connectors) that had, in addition to flat connectors in the middle part of the body, a wide bracket or handle. The handle was used to pass a pole through it; in this way, the tubs, well-equilibrated due to their equal volumes and identical shapes, could be transported by pairs of porters. [...] Bottoms of the tubs could have been made of leather drawn over the clay funnel; the funnel was then securely tied over. Such tubs allowed carrying large amounts of grain from the fields; wide containers could also be used as drums ( 1987: 90). Based on this hypothesis, we may assume that binocular and monocular objects were reduced-size models of articles, to be used in religious rituals. However, models of articles normally form a specific group of items that comprises (apart from models of houses, sleighs, boats, and some anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figure) miniature vessels. Such miniature vessels are usually up to 5cm high. These also include binocular and monocular objects that are comparable in size to other vessels when done to regular scale (2025 to 50cm high). Therefore, binocular and monocular objects cannot be considered as actual models.

Besides, the use of soft-material bottoms in prototypes also seems to be doubtful. The range of analogs to these objects is very wide. V.G.Child terms Cucuteni monocular objects as hollow supports of Early Sumerian type ( 1952: 191); similar vase-shaped altars were found in Asia Minor and Mesopotamia (Frankfort 1923), and in Eneolithic culture of South-Western Turkmenia ( 1997: 64, 111). They were also present in Ancient Egypt and even in Neolithic China ( 2002: 6869; - et al. 1986: 301, Fig. 85/15; 2002). Hollow supports shaped as single cylinders or truncated cones are quite widespread in Balkan Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures, where they were found in the layers of tells that correspond to Karanovo V and Gumelnia Karanovo VI levels. This includes numerous finds from Yunatsite, Vinica, Golyamo Delchevo, Ovcharovo, and other sites ( 1988: Fig. 2/1, 4; 1976: Fig. 5/5, 10/11, 12/9, etc.; 1975: Table 25/1, 22/23; 1983: Table 68/1, 73/45; 1986: Fig. 23/9). Original cylindrical articles with quadrangular upper parts have been found in the materials of Hamangia culture (Marinescu-Blcu 1972: Fig. 2/6, 3/1). In Lower Danube Lands, hollows supports originate from sites of Boian culture and those of Stoicani-Aldeni type. The area of these sites is immediately adjacent to that of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture ( 1961: 52; Dragomir 1983: Fig. 28/810). High supports from Transylvanian Petreti culture have the closest shapes to those from Cucuteni culture (Paul 1995: 273, pl. VII/2, VIII/3, XVI/6, XIX/7, etc.) Similar items are encountered in Balkans up to the Early Iron Age. For instance, monocular objects have been found in Basarabi culture of early 1st millennium B.C. that belongs to the sphere of Thracian Hallstatt culture (Vulpe 1986: Abb. 1/17). They were also found in antique sites: similar small hollow altars were discovered within the Greek dwelling of Neapolis Scythian that belongs to 3rd2nd century B.C. Their burned inner walls suggest that these objects were used as altars ( 1990: 90, Fig. 6/6). The problem of functional purpose of hollow cylindrical articles from Tripolye-Cucuteni can hardly be answered unambiguously by comparing them with objects of a similar structure originating from other cultures. Typological analysis of such items is also insufficient. The situation could probably be made clearer by the information on contexts where such monocular and binocular objects were found; unfortunately, however, such data are very scarce and controversial.
Several isolated observations can only be provided for an example. Thus, in Platform III in Jura, a binocular object was registered near the kiln, one of its funnels being filled with burned-through small flint chips, and one arrow-head ( 1953: 147). A binocular filled with calcined debris of bulls skull was found at the altar in a pottery workshop in Veselyj Kut settlement (Tripolye BII period; 1994: 81). In Drua I found binocular articles are concentrated within the main clusters of ceramics related to utility zones of the dwellings ( 1994: 52).


Hollow monocular supports are very rare in PrecucuteniTripolye . The only article of the sort can perhaps be mentioned; it was found in Lenkovtsy, the latest of Early Tripolye sites in Dniester Lands (Fig. 85/1) ( 1959: 6869, Table IX/3). A wide occurrence of singular monocular supports and of doubled binocular objects only begins in Tripolye ICucuteni stage. It should be noted that a rigid correspondence to specific site groups can be traced from the very start (Fig. 87). Monocular objects are mainly related to the sites of the Western part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area, where painted pottery prevails. As for binocular objects, they only frequently occur in Northern Moldavia, in Dniester Lands, and in Eastern Tripolye sites. In the Eastern part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area, such items have so far only been found absent in Berezovskaya GES settlement and in Rusetii Noi I, where the only discovered monocular objects were decorated with incised lines (Fig. 85/67) ( 1971: Fig. 5; 1970: Fig. 13/2). However, these sites are peculiar in their location at the Southern borders of Tripolye. Binocular objects have been found in Luka-Vrublevetskaya, Darabani, Trueti, and Mitoc (Fig. 60/1; 84/3, 10) ( 1953: 147, Fig. 59,; Ambrojevici 1933: Fig. 5/2; Petrescu-Dmbovia, Florescu M., Florescu A. 1999: Fig. 192197; Popovici 1986: pl. IV). Sizeable series of such articles originate from Polivanov Yar III and Cuconetii Vechi, where Dwelling I alone contains more than 20 of them. All of the items are relief-decorated. In Cuconetii Vechi, in addition to standard double connectors (Fig. 86/3), fragments of articles with triple connectors that connect both the two bodies and the lower connector have also been found (Fig. 50/11, 12). This shapes indicated the anthropomorphism of the middle connector; more visual cases of it are represented in several binocular objects excavated by V.V.Khvojka in Dnieper Lands (Fig. 85/89; National Historical Museum in Kiev, Coll. 110). This anthropomorphism of connectors in binocular objects matches the shapes of certain statuettes (Fig. 86/6) (see 1983: Fig. 13/13). Thus, the semantics of the binocular articles might be based on an anthropomorphic image. Besides, stylization of images reflected in connectors of the binocular items, as well as specific features of connectors design, which employed connection methods that are typical for objects made of solid materials, let us assume that these articles might have had wooden prototypes (see 1987: 90). Series of binocular objects from Trueti and Cuconetii Vechi are also different in that funnel decorations of most items reproduce the patterns found in bowls (Fig. 86/3), which may be related to the similarity of their design. The transfer of patterns is in this case similar to the
One could similarly assume that carved wooden figurines also existed in Tripolye. Besides, the binocular objects could account for the small amount of anthropomorphic plastic figures found in Tripolye settlements of Bug-Dniester interfluves ( 1993: 76): the binocular items might have been used in religious rituals instead of anthropomorphic figures. Alternatively, such figures might have been mostly made of wood and thus were not preserved up to the present time.


 52

case of pear-shaped vessels with lower parts ornate with bowl-like compositions. Binocular objects of the same kind were also found in Trueti, Ttruca Nou III, and Polivanov Yar III (Fig. 58/10). Standardized shapes of binocular objects were observed in materials from Drua, Drgueni, Duruitoarea Nou, and Brnzeni IV (Fig. 33/2; 86/4). Funnels of these articles are decorated with vertical flutes or bands of trichromatic painting, and their bodies, with horizontal or slanted ones. Deviations from the standard are rare: for instance, in Drua, a single article features slanted flutes adorning its funnel. Differences can only be found in the shape of the middle connector, which might have, in some cases, a hollow or two or three ledges below in addition to the ledge above. That might be a result of simplification of triple anthropomorphic connectors. Binocular objects analogous to North-Moldavian ones were also found in Jura, Solonceni II2, and Vasilevka (Fig. 68/10, 74/3) (, 1989: Fig. 2/13). Shapes of binocular objects from some of the sites belonging to the Eastern part of Tripolye area differ from those found in Northern Moldavia. For instance, articles from Krasnostavka and Zarubintsy are composed of two truncated-cone-shaped funnels and have no cylindrical bodies (Fig. 86/5) (Passek 1935: pl. VI/34; 1980: Fig. 1/8). This makes them similar to monocular objects from Rusetii Noi I, Berezovskaya GES and the settlement of Shkarovka upon Ros river that belongs to Tripolye BII period ( 1980: 172175). However, decorative patterns on these items gravitate towards the Cuconetii Vechi series (compositions of oblong ellipses, semicircles with interstices hatched with oblique lines, and slanted lines). Thus, the area of occurrence of binocular objects in Tripolye ICucuteni period only includes the sites of Northern Moldavia and Eastern Tripolye. Ceramic assemblages of all these sites are based on relief-decorated pottery. Appearance of binocular items in sites located

further to the South, e.g. in Jura and Solonceni, is related to fluted pottery that is there very scarce, either imported or represented local imitations of North-Moldavian examples (Fig. 87). Hollow monocular supports mostly occur within the zone of painted pottery, which comprises the sites of the central part of Romanian Moldova and Carpathian region (Fig. 85/24; 87). In cases were both monocular and binocular objects are found (Trueti, Cuconetii Vechi, Jura), the former are distinctly related to painted ware. Fluted monocular articles from Drua and Duruitoarea Nou are versions of later types, wherein the decoration technique is transferred from binocular objects to monocular ones that have a similar function (Fig. 33/1, 85/5). Original monocular objects are found in Rusetii Noi and Berezovskaya GES. In addition to the incised decoration, they are also distinguished by the presence of handles located under the rim or at the junction of upper and lower funnels (Fig. 85/67). Appearance of such shapes can be attributed not only to an influence of Western regions, but also to the peculiarity of these sites that manifest numerous Early Tripolye features in their ware. Thus, occurrence of specific kinds of ceramic ware monocular and binocular objectsprovides a more precise definition of previously outlined Eastern and Western parts of Tripolye BICucuteni area. These parts would be more exactly termed as North-Western and South-Eastern ones, respectively. The first of them comprises the sites of Northern Moldavia, Dniester Lands, and Eastern Tripolye; the other one includes those of Transylvania, Carpathian region, and the central part of Romanian Moldova, as well as the Southern sites, such as Bereti and Jura. Definition of these two provinces within Tripolye-Cucuteni culture does not however exclude a more minute division related to local variants that are defined according to specific features of ceramic assemblages found in different territories.

5.3. Local variants

The overall structure of Tripolye ICucuteni area revealed during description of the material includes at least five local variant. They are marked by more or less distinct clusters of sites that are interconnected with common genetic lines of development of pottery assemblages (Fig. 3; 88, 89, 90). 1. The North-Moldavian local variant is situated in the Northern part of Pruth-Dniester interfluves and in the adjacent regions of the right bank of Pruth and the left bank of Dniester rivers. Two chronological groups of sites may be distinguished here. The earliest one, which corresponds to the phases Cucuteni 23 of Romanian periodization, is represented by the materials of site of Trueti-Cuconetii Vechi type in Pruth Lands, and those of Polivanov Yar III-Ttruca Nou III in Middle Dniester Lands. Later sites of Drua-Drgueni type correspond to
Here, as well as in Trueti, isolated painted binocular objects may be considered to be exceptions (Crmaru 1977: 58, Fig. 40/5; Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999: Fig. 272/1).


the final part of Tripolye BICucuteni 4 stage. Both chronological groups have common pottery traditions; decorations of ceramics form here clearly traceable typological series. The core of pottery assemblages consists of ware with incised and fluted decorations combined with painting in red and white, which progressively develops into bichromatic painting. Further development of traditions of this local variant is related to sites similar to those of Corltni and DrgnetiValea Ungureanului belonging to Cucuteni 1 time, and Polivanov Yar II of Cucuteni 2 period ( 1997; Palaguta 1998; 1983; 2003). The red-and-white set of colors that originated from TriRepresentative series of monocular objects were found in Hbeti, Trpeti, Frumuica, Cucuteni , and Izvoare II (see Dumitrescu et al. 1954: 370371, pl. /1,12; CI/89; Marinescu-Blcu 1981: Fig. 174/2; Matas 1946: pl.XXVIII/262, XXIX/255, 263264, 268; Schmidt 1932: taf. 2/2; 7/4; Vulpe 1957: Fig. 154/2; 155).


 53

polye BICucuteni period is preserved in painting of ware from these sites for a long time. Position of sites found in Upper Dniester Lands, such as Niezwiska II and Kudrintsy, is not yet quite clear. Their ceramics suggests that they belong to the final stages of Tripolye ICucuteni period and to early Cucuteni time. A number of original features of painting, that illustrate a progressive transition from polychromatic Cucuteni decors towards the styles of group , typical for the next period, allow to ascribe these sites to a special group, which later develops into the Zaleschiki local variant of Cucuteni period (see 1983). 2. Comparison of pottery assemblage from Jura settlement situated in the South of Middle Dniester Lands with the materials of North-Moldavian sites reveals a number of distinction in their ceramic ware, which allow defining the Southern local variant of Cucuteni period in PruthDniester interfluves. Apart from Jura, this local variant also includes Bereti-type settlement in the South of Romanian Moldova. Unlike the North-Moldavian variant, pottery assemblages of the sites belonging to the Southern one are based on trichromatic painted ceramics. Typical imported items and imitations found there match those of North-Moldavian settlement of the final part of Cucuteni , such as Drgueni and Duruitoarea Nou. Prevalence of latitudinal links (Bereti-Jura) over longitudinal ones in the development of Southern local variant is quite understandable: it is separated from the main body of North-Moldavian sites of Pruth-Dniester interfluves with the wood-covered Kodry mountain range (see 1991: 138, Fig. 28). Although earlier sites of the Southern region (such as Rusetii Noi) also present a number of peculiar features, they are not yet sufficiently well-studied to allow for confidently connecting them with the origin of subsequent sites of Jura and Bereti types. Jura-type sites replace the settlements of the type of Solonceni II2 and Orheiul Vechi of Cucuteni period. They are linked with a common development trend of polychromatic decorations and -style painting. N.M.Vinogradova distinguished these sites as Solonceni local variant ( 1983). 3, 4. Two more local variant existed in Romanian Moldova during Cucuteni A period with pottery assemblages dominated by painted ware: Carpathian (including such sites as Trpeti IV, Izvoare II, Frumuica, etc.) and Central (with sites of Hbeti I, Cucuteni , Ruginoasa, and Fedeleeni) local variants. Chronology of Carpathian sites is not yet quite clearly determined: results of stratigtraphical studies that were carried out in 19301949s in Izvoare obviously have to be revised taking into account newly obtained materials. Sites of South-Eastern Transylvania, such as Ariud VII, have original local features; however, they tend to gravitate towards the settlements of the Carpathian variant, both territorially and in the characteristics of their materials. Both groups are characterized in that their assemblages contain, in addition to polychromatic pottery, peculiar bichromatic ceramics painted with thin white lines over dark-red background (the earlier-type bichromy).

 54

Similarly to North-Moldavian sites, two stages can be defined in the relative chronology of sites belonging to the Central variant. The earlier stage is represented by the materials from Hbeti and Cucuteni ; the later one, by Fedeleeni. Painted pottery prevails in these materials, too. Early-stage assemblages feature a sizeable group of vessels with incised and fluted decorations. Carpathianaspect bichromatic pottery lacks in these sets. 5. Sites of the Eastern (or Bug-Dniester) local variant, such as Borisovka and Berezovskaya GES upon Southern Bug river, Zarubintsy and Krasnostavka in BugDnieper interfluves, differ from Pruth and Dniester Lands settlements substantially. First of all, this difference is manifested in the prevalence of relief-decorated pottery. Painted vessels that are typical for Western regions are rarely found here and mostly amount to articles imported from the West. Decor of local ware features archaic motifs that can be traced back to Early Tripolye snake-like patterns. This allows assuming that these settlements continue the trend of development of Early Tripolye traditions at the edge of the culture area. Further existence of the population that left us these sites (of the so-called Borisovka type) is related to separation of Bug-Dniester local variant during Tripolye BII Cucuteni period ( 1983: 6674). E.V.Tsvek distinguishes it as an individual Eastern Tripolye culture ( 2003). This definition have certain grounds, since the originality of sites located in this region is rather strikingly manifested against the background of development of settlements situated further to the West. The author believes however that in Tripolye BICucuteni period, peculiarity of Eastern Tripolye sites was not yet sufficient as to distinguish them as a separate culture, even within the framework of a common cultural entity. Pottery industry of the region bears many features resembling to the sites of other regions, both in manufacturing or decoration technologies and in decor forms and motifs. Other categories of finds do not provide grounds for such a separation either; these include metallic articles that can be traced back to a common center of metal processing, and the design of clay dwellings that frequently only differ in functions and dimensions. As for flint articles, their variability largely depends on sources and quality of raw materials, while variations in plastic arts performance may only exist at the level of specific feataures of local variants. Therefore, so far one can only discuss an Eastern local variant in Tripolye BI period. Development of this variant mostly display separatist tendencies, that are revealed more manifestly during the next period of Tripolye BII. Local structure of the culture did not remain unchanged during the period of Tripolye BICucuteni . Mapping of sites belonging to all local variants according to distinctive features of their ceramic assemblages and to the defined chronological stages yields a picture of its development dynamics (Fig. 88, 89, 90). At the early stage of Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 13, differentiation of local variants is less distinct than afterwards (Fig. 88). Sites of the Carpathian variant in Eastern Carpathian region and South-Eastern Transylvania are characterized by coexistence of pottery decorated with the

earlier-type bichromy with polychromatic ware. The Central local variant (sites of Hbeti and Cucuteni types) plays the leading role in the propagation of innovations, first of all, in the form of painted pottery. Ceramics decorated with polychromatic painting is then extended further to the North, up to Middle and Upper Dniester Lands (DarabaniI, Gorodnitsa-Gorodische). Its analogs are also present in assemblages of Polivanov Yar III, Trueti, and Cuconetii Vechi sites, where it becomes an integral part of pottery assemblages. In the East of Tripolye area, imported ceramics of Hbeti-like aspect reaches as far as Bug Lands (Berezovskaya GES, Sabatinovka I). The Southern local variant was not yet formed during Tripolye BI/1 period. Sites of Hbeti type, such as Poineti, exist at Brlad Plateau; and the territory of BrladPruth interfluves makes part of the area of StoicaniAldeni variant of Gumelnia culture (Fig. 89, 96) (see Dragomir 1983: Fig. 1). V.Ya.Sorochin also attributed the settlements of Rusetii Noi I and Jora de Sus in the South of Middle Dniester Lands to the same Hbeti type (Sorochin 1996; Sorochin 1997). Formation of the local variant of Northern Moldavia and Middle Dniester Lands is reflected in pottery from such sites as Trueti and Cuconetii Vechi, Polivanov Yar III and Ttruca Nou III. The core of assemblages of these sites is constituted by articles with relief decorations combined with painting with red and white paints. Nevertheless, painted vessels are also present in most assemblages. Representatives of the Bug-Dniester local variant of the culture develop the traditions of Early Tripolye. Painted pottery is only found here as imported articles that are few in number. The next stage, that of Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4, is characterized by the ever growing differentiation of local variants (Fig. 89). This is the flourishing time of North-Moldavian sites of Drua-Drgueni type; development of these sites was genetically connected with the settlements of the preceding stage (sites of TruetiCuconetii Vechi type). The latest of these sites (Brnzeni IV) feature in their pottery assemblages samples of

painting in styles that are already typical for the next period of Cucuteni . At the end of Cucuteni period, detachment of sites form Upper Dniester region (such as Niezwiska II) into a separated group begins to take form. In Brlad Plateau and Pruth-Brlad interfluves, the Southern local variant is formed during Tripolye BI/2 stage; it comprises the sites of Bereti-Jura type. Pottery assemblages of its sites are characterized by the presence of large groups of polychromatic painted ware decorated with complex compositions of multiple-curl S-shaped helices and large amounts of additional elements. Similar changes also take place in pottery decorations of Central and Western (later assemblages in Izvoare II) local variants. Development of Eastern Tripolye sites was apparently going on in a more stable fashion. Sites of Krasnostavka type of the final part of Cucuteni period, that replaced Borisovka-type settlements, continue the same development trend that was defined as early as the end of Tripolye . Clusters of sites that make up local variants are also heterogeneous. For instance, E.V.Tsvek notes the local individuality of settlement groups in Eastern Tripolye and distinguishes Bug-Dniester, Southern-Bug and Middle-Bug sites (that she believes to form local variant in the framework of Eastern Tripolye culture; see 1999). The same can be stated on the structure of other variants. Differences between the assemblages of Bereti and Jura are indisputable: while the main dominant of their structure, the painted pottery, is preserved, the position of the latter site at the Eastern edge of the local variant predetermined the presence of incised-decoration ware group in its set. The North-Moldavian variant is not uniform either: despite the common general trends of development of materials as defined above, distinctions between the sites of Bug Lands and Dniester Lands are undeniable; assemblages of the latter go on containing archaic pottery with incised decorations for a longer time. Development mechanisms of cultural differences, both between local variants and within them, can be explained by considering the basic structural units: microgroups of settlements.

5.4. Development of local groups

Separation of local variants that takes place during the development of a culture and is manifested in changes of ceramic materials results from the development of smaller territorial entities, microgroups of sites. Nested distribution of Tripolye settlements along the basins of smalland middle-size rivers have been noted in many publications ( 1980: 185; , 1982: 235). Microgroups of settlements were also observed in mapping Tripolye BI sites. How can one conceive functioning of settlements within such microgroups? One of existing points of view is to consider a group including several synchronous villages as a social organism larger than a community: a clan or a tribe ( 1964; 1965: 58; 1993: 7374). V.M.Masson supposed that a hierarchical system of settlements, where larger centers were surrounded by constellations of smaller villages, probably collaterally subordinated, at least economically was formed in local groups of Tripolye sites (, 1975: 3132; 1980; 2000b: 142). K.K.Chernysh followed V.M.Masson in noting the clustered distribution of Tripolye settlements, where smaller sites are grouped near a center (or several non-simultaneous centers) of a fairly large size (, 1982: 235, 240). Similar hierarchies of central loci and smaller settlements, to be described using this model, were studied in Eneolithic and Bronze-Age sites in Central Asia that gravitate towards the oases with developed irrigation systems ( 1976: 129, 141144; , 1982: 54 55; 1980). Analogous hierarchical systems were also in use in Mesopotamia and in Mesoamerica (see Flannery 1976). In Europe, groups of large and small multilayer tells that formed a common settlement system existed in Bul-

 55

garia (Dennell 1978; Dennell, Webley 1979). Unfortunately, however, the existing degree of exploration of materials from Bulgarian tells only allow attributing them to rather wide a chronological range; therefore, the simultaneity of functioning of such tell systems cannot yet be proved (Sherratt 1972: 515; Renfrew, Poston 1979: 438440). The concept of hierarchical settlement system arose from economical models of functioning of connections between present-day urban and rural settlements. Studies of their existence and interconnections with the environment origin from the researches of J.H.vonThnen, a prominent economist of the first half of 19th century (see 1992: 3132; Clarke 1977: 2122). Later on, this model was extended onto settlement systems functioning in the framework of hierarchical structure as described by Central Place theory by Walter Christaller. This theory was developed in 1930s to interpret spatial distribution and functioning of towns and villages in Southern Germany (see Renfrew, Bahn 1993: 158162; Clarke: 1977: 2324). However, can this theory be applied to the specific circumstances of early agricultural settlements in Neolithic Europe? One should bear in mind that the functioning of the suggested settlement model is based on a relatively constant location of settlements for fairly long time intervals. According to an alternative approach, microgroups of early agricultural sites were formed as a result of periodic transposition of villages to new locations carried out by the same group of people in course of exploration of a new region. This model, more flexible in time and space, has been developing starting from as early as 193040s due to observations on settling sequences and site systems of Danube culture of linear-band pottery (Buttler 1938; etc.) Settling of representatives of the culture was taking place on easily cultivated and fertile loess soils of Central and Western Europe (see 1953: 103104, Fig. 45; 1966: 30, Fig. 2). The short lifetime of the villages, as well as multiple instances of settling separated by certain time intervals reconstructed in some of them, was explained by the Nomadic Agriculture theory, according to which, farmers had to periodically transfer their villages to new locations due to destructive agricultural technologies that caused soil depletion in the nearest vicinity ( 1952: 145 146, 199; Piggott 1965: 5052). This image of a fairly high mobility of early European farmers is generally confirmed, albeit with some corrections and refinements, by
In the context of exploration of settling systems in Central Europe, researches of Polish scholars based on materials from the cultures of linear-band pottery, Lendel-Polgar sphere, and funnelshaped pottery are highly interesting. Examining settling cultures represents here an integral part of studies of ancient economies (Kruk 1973, Kruk 1980). In some cases (e.g. that of funnel-beakers culture), elements of a hierarchical settling system were registered, wherein a number of sites were formed around a functioning permanent base settlement. However, the settling system of Polish Neolithic cultures generally also appears to be rather mobile (Kruk 1980: 8085, Fig. 10). Pottery analysis was extensively used in studying settling systems, since it allows distinguishing minute chronological stages of existence of such systems (Rybicka 1995: 127138).


 56

the researches of a few last decades ( 1966: 3032; 1996: 154158; 1989: 186187; Waterbolk 1962: 235237; Early European Agriculture 1982: 137138). A similar opinion was also expressed by V.G.Child on Tripolye culture ( 1952: 199). Periodical changes of locations of Tripolye settlements were also noted by T.D.Belanovskaya and K.K.Chernysh ( 1958: 24; 1962: 8385). Rise of a mobile settling system was also noted by N.M.Vinogradova. In her concept, single-layer Tripolye sites are considered to be individual layers of a spatially distributed multi-layer tell. This hypothesis forms the basis of her stratigraphical method of pottery assemblage studies ( 1974: 4). Thus, the single-layer structure of most Tripolye sites is a key indicator for settling process reconstruction. Even the sites that feature several occupation layers were repeatedly re-populated after certain time intervals. Lifetime of a single-layer Tripolye settlement is usually estimated to be of the order of 5075 years ( 1981: 10; 1989: 120121; 1993: 103; et al. 1997: 239, 255256, 312). Therefore, the life style of Tripolye farmers appears to be highly mobile, based on regular changes of settling locations. It remains to find out how this process was carried out. Exploration of microgroups of sites plays the most important role in answering this question. Many scholars conclude based on their studies of different materials that clusters of heterogeneous sites were formed by single groups of settlers who transferred their villages to new locations (p 1987: 2829; 1989; , , , 1989: 78, 27; , 1990; 1997, 1998, 2000). The simplest version of this settling model has the form of a simple sequence of settlement locations: 123 ...n. Of course, the actual process can be much more complicated. Different sites might be partially synchronous to each others, i.e. outside settlements could start developing while the initial settlement still existed. Besides, subdivisions of a group resulting in formation of two or more new settlements within it, as well as outflow of people with a consecutive development of a new group of sites elsewhere, are quite admissible. Nevertheless, all possible variants still assume: 1) chronological succession, and 2) relative territorial unity of the sites. This model does not rule out a hierarchy of settlements: it can also be traced, either at the level of synchronous sites in different microgroup sequences or within an individual groups consisting of several sequences, where a central settlement of the longest date exists in parallel with outside daughter settlements. A definitive answer to this question requires new studies based on total exploration of micro-regions. Data on sizes of Tripolye BICucuteni A settlements do not contradict the proposed mobile settling model. Area of the sites is predominantly up to 5ha, where up to 100 buildings can be accommodated (Sorochin 1997: 1213). Population of such sites was up to 500 people. Isolated settlements may occupy areas over 10 ha, but in such sites, horizontal stratigraphy could develop.

Similar reconstructions of mobile systems of settling in agricultural regions were developed as early as 1930s based on the studies of settlement groups belonging to the linear-band pottery culture. However, the problem of simultaneity or temporal diversity of settlements within local groups remains unresolved up to the present day (Early European Agriculture 1982: 3334). Study of settling sequences in micro-regions allows revealing, not only the relative, but also the absolute chronology of the sites by summing up approximate lifetime lengths of different settlements belonging to the microgroup. This method was used to determine the dating of multi-layer sites, such as Troy III (Blegen et al. 1950: 4041). Duration of existence of building levels was estimated to 35 or, taking into account radiocarbon dating, to 5560 years (Mellaart 1960: 276277). The mobile settling system for Cucuteni Tripolye I period, as reconstructed above, is based on the materials of North-Moldavian sites located in Ciugur river valley (see 2000). The revealed sequence of successively existing settlements with pottery materials linked with genetic connections includes the following sites: Cuconetii VechiIDruaIDuruitoarea NouI (Varatic VI, Varatic XII)Duruitoarea Vechi. These settlements might have been left by a single group or several related groups of people who dwelled in this specific micro-region during a period of 150200 years, i.e. within the lifetime of 810 generations. Further researches may result in generating similar sequences of sites around

Ttruca Nou III (Palaguta 2003: 21). We have also registered a chronological sequence of Cucuteni AB sites in Drgneti ( 1997a). Thus, in Tripolye BICucuteni period, settlement of the area is based on microgroups of successive settlements located in valleys of small rivers (or individual portions of banks of major waterways: Pruth, Dniester, Southern Bug, etc.) Higher-level structures, such as local variants of the culture or site groups featuring similar ceramic assemblages related with common genetic development trends, also form microgroups. Therefore, Tripolye-Cucuteni can be considered as a mobile, continuously changing in time, system whose development is based on exploration of new agricultural territories, segmentation and appearance of new independent villages ( 1978: 11). It is this segmentation of the culture that results in formation of local variants. Further development of Tripolye-Cucuteni sites was directed towards generating hierarchical structures. By the end of Tripolye BIITripolye CI period, a qualitative leap in settlement hierarchy takes place, which results in formation of giant settlements such as Veselyj Kut, Dobrovody, Talyanki and Majdanetskoye, 150400ha in area, populated by up to a few thousand people. Nevertheless, Tripolye society did not take the route of Far-Eastern urban development: the rather short period of existence of hyper-centers ended in disintegration and decline of the culture ( 2000b: 142146).

The problem lies in the fact that the materials of linear-band pottery culture settlements are not always sufficient to allow drawing well-grounded conclusions. Pottery found in Tripolye settlements, more numerous and varied, provides better opportunities for reconstruction when adequate research methods are used.


 57

CHAPTER 6. POTTERY DECORATIONS AND CULTURE DEVELOPMENT

6.1. Initial decorative forms and their development

The dynamic process of culture development, as defined by expansion of its area and by its segmentation into local variants that took place during Tripolye BICucuteni A period, affected not only the material culture of ancient population of Carpathian-Dnieper lands, but also their world outlook and ideology. Specific indicators of this process are represented by changes in pottery decor, which, as a peculiar rhythmic art ( 1982: 2427), expresses aesthetic notions of early European farmers. Decoration of Tripolye pottery also reflected the basic ideas of geometry and space, as well as the semiotic aspect of the culture. In decoration studies, in addition to cultural and historical research methods, a major part is also played by the art-critic approach. It concentrates on the exploration of both the aesthetical influence of the decoration on the spectator (taking into account different perceptions of decor by modern and ancient spectators) and the rhythms, the artistic means of rendering, and the degree of artists creative activity; his individual, synthesizing, or traditionally conservative approach towards his oeuvre, i.e. that factors that allow reconstructing the development of the art bases, and estimating the degree of spiritual and creative maturity of the art at different points in the past ( 1981). However, similarly to the studies of any other type of art objects discovered in archaeological exploration, considering the decors requires prior source studies using peculiar archeological methods including genetic typology research. Tripolye decorations, just as any other type of visual artistry, can be considered both on content level, which reflects concepts and notions expressed by the image, and on expression level that is formed by stylistic elements and technical methods ( 1980). In some cases, the content level of a decor may be limited to just a few symbols, while the expression level is fairly extensive, up to the point of completely losing the resemblance to the initial base. Forms of ceramic ware in Tripolye-Cucuteni culture of the considered period are relatively stable. Some of them have more or less distinct human body shapes. This does not only concern specifically anthropomorphic vessels that imitate female bodies, but also the beakers and pear-shaped vessels, as well as their respective lids ( 1989). This idea is also emphasized in the decor of anthropomorphic plastic arts: some figurines are decorated with helical patterns that are also typical for ceramic vessels ( 1983: 4647, Fig. 4/4, 8; 5/3; Table 4). The concept of vessel as a metaphor for human body is present in most early agricultural cultures of ancient Europe and Middle East: anthropomorphic vessels have been found in pottery assemblages of virtually all such cultures. However, in spite of direct or indirect realization of the vessel-body idea in pottery forms, their distinctions mostly and primarily reflect different functions of the vessels, which accounts for the relative stability of sets of such forms. Tripolye decorative patterns feature a much wider range of individual variations than pottery forms; these variations vividly illustrate the extensive variety of expression forms based on fundamental themes. Numerous considerations have been expressed to explain what is represented in Tripolye pottery decorations. An entire series of papers interpreting the patterns found in individual vessels were published ( 1905; 1931; 1965; 1981; 1990; Gimbutas 1991; 1991; 1994, etc.) However, such works are mostly based on revealing external similarity between decor figures and some images arbitrarily selected out of historical or ethnographical context. They do not take into account the variability of decorations within specific ceramic assemblages, as well as the dynamics of their temporal mutations. That is why, e.g. the controversy over what, snakes or dragons, is depicted in Tripolye vessels ( 1991; 1994) was not founded on any serious explorations and appeared to be futile. The polysemantic and variable character of Tripolye decorations does not allow making definitive statements on images represented in them. It would not be amiss to cite here L.Lvi-Bruhl who noted that, due to its polysemantic nature, a drawing belonging to a primitive culture may bear no resemblance at all to the object it depicts (- 1994: 9798; he also provides relevant ethnographic examples). This is not only typical for TripolyeCucuteni culture. For instance, a semantic analysis of images found on the vessels from North-American pueblo culture is impossible, since, according to ethnographical data, substantial variations in interpretation of identical decorative figures may even be observed among different potters of the same village ( 1967: 145146). That is why the term snakes used herein with respect to some of Tripolye decorative patterns, can only be used as a conventional name for the depicted theme. Search for the meaning of snake-like figures that provided the basis of helical decorative patterns of TripolyeCucuteni is possible if founded on the concept of common world outlook ideas throughout the entire early agriculture area, and on the hypothesis of a common cultural text. In this context, the approach that considers a decorative pat-

 58

tern as a sign or a set of signs, rendered either fully or in cursive, appears to be rather promising ( 1998). Should however a decorative pattern be considered as a recording of a text consisting of a set of signs? Such structural-semiotic approach as put forward by T.M.Tkachuk is based on revealing and systemizing stable combinations of signs applied over the main decoration scheme, and determining the semantic foundations of these texts based on certain pictographic system (, 2000). This approach features however some rather substantial drawbacks. Are all signs actual signs? When examining in detail most simpler signs (such as circles, semicircles or dots), they frequently prove to be elements of a technological pattern or marking dots and lines ( 1981; 1991: 130). Do they bear the semantic load that is expected to be found in them? Most probably not. However, in formal analysis, such signs sometimes are still considered as a part of the text. It results in that such studies yield arbitrary and subjective interpretations of compositions. The accumulated experience of ethnographic pottery studies demonstrates that ancient potters would not often create complex classifications of patterns and shapes. They rather fixed main elements and distinctive features (Hardin 1979: 7778; 8587; the example of traditional pottery of Mexican Indians). The entire composition taken together could be perceived as a single sign determining the place of the vessel in authors classification. Craftsmen used a traditional set of decorative motifs in decorating their ceramics. The image of a vessel would acquire specific forms as the article was being manufactured, and was not completely formed until the decoration was fully accomplished (Hardin 1979: 9598). Nevertheless, analyzing decor elements is necessary. It should however always be supported by corresponding researches of specific pottery assemblages. Search for semantic foundations of compositions in Tripolye decorations is inseparable from the analysis of the corresponding expression level, i.e. of the forms and variations of decors in specific sites or groups of sites whose pottery features such decorations. Typologies of Tripolye decorations were considered in a number of papers published as early as 19201940s ( 1929; 1926; ikalenko 1927; ikalenko 1930; 1939; 1949). It should be noted that typological series of decorative schemes only partially reflect the actual development sequences of object types. In reality, earlier and later types of articles may exist simultaneously within the same assemblage, as was repeatedly emphasized above in descriptions of individual pottery assemblages (such as Drua and Cuconetii Vechi). Unidirectional development of decorations can be established within the limits of a microgroup, i.e. a chain of genetically interrelated sites. However, parallel existence and reciprocal influence of several independent manufacturing and decoration traditions within a single assemblage cannot be ruled out either. In addition, studying of Tripolye-Cucuteni decorations is complicated by the fact that pottery of this culture represents a multifunctional set of ware, where specific article forms are matched by individual types of decor.

Unity of decorations and forms can be determined both by the multi-component character of the assemblage (where some types of ware may be introduced ready-made from outside) and by non-uniform development of different kinds of pottery. The most striking example of this situation is provided in bowls found in pottery assemblages of Northern Moldavia. These articles go on featuring incised decorations composed according to their peculiar schemes up to the period of Cucuteni 2, were virtually all other vessels already have painted decor ( 1983: 6365). Types and compositions of decorative figures are also directly affected by decoration techniques, by use of specific tools for applying decors, and by the quality of articles to be decorated. When considering decoration schemes, one also should take into account that pottery exists within a culture in parallel with a set of wicker, wooden, textile, and other non-ceramic articles that may become prototypes of ceramic ware, with respect both to its forms and to its decorations ( 1994: 122, 125). Thus, all mentioned factors define the mutability and, therefore, the possibility of interpretation of decorative figures and compositions. Helix is the main figure of Tripolye decorative patterns. On what image is this decorative element based? Assemblages of earlier sites belonging to Precucuteni-Tripolye A period (Traian-dealul Viei, Izvoare I, Trpeti II, Bernashovka, Floreti, etc.) provide a series of conventionally realistic zoomorphic images that can be considered to form the starting point of development of the entire variety of Tripolye curvilinear helical patterns. The main motif of these pattern is an image of two snakes curled towards each other (Fig. 91/114). It is done in incised or cut-in technique that is typical of that time. Origins of this motif in PrecucuteniTripolye A might be, to an extent, related to linear-band pottery culture, which, along with the Lower Danube culture of Boian-Ghiuleti, is considered to be the genetic underlying base of its formation ( 1989: 197). However, helical motifs are rendered there (as well as in Balkan Neolithic cultures) in an extremely schematic way. In Tripolye, to the contrary, conventionally realistic images appear. During the development of Precucuteni culture, the image that had existed in initial cultures in an extremely schematic form underwent actualization. Thus, appearance of a new cultural phenomenon takes place, where the initial elements are re-read in an entirely new context. This semantic update is confirmed by the results of N.B.Burdos researches, which demonstrate that most features of Precucuteni I pottery assemblage cannot be
Curvilinear helical patterns were probably initially related to painting (Starevo-Kros-Cri culture) and were later adapted during transitions from painting to relief techniques and back. They take similar, but always original, forms in different Neolithic and Eneolithic cultural entities of South-Eastern Europe and propagate through related cultures due to migration of craftsmen and production of imitative articles. One also notes that imitative decors might be rendered in a different cultural environment using techniques that were proper to the craftsmen of the borrowing culture.


 59

derived from the linear-band pottery culture or from the materials of Boian-Ghiuleti culture ( 2003: 146147). As for Early Tripolye snakes, the bands that form their bodies are hatched with transverse or longitudinal lines. They have semicircular heads attached to their ends that bear distinctly defined eyes or several pinpointed tongues. The compositions are located in the horizontal decorative zone at vessel bodies (Fig. 91/110, 14), as is typical for the so-called rotating style (Umlufstil), which was initially defined for linear-band ceramics. This style has no separations beside the separation between decorative motifs delimited with horizontal zones; these motifs never divide the surface into any other fields than these horizontal belts ( 1949: 61). In lids, these motifs are distorted and turned around in the horizontal plane, according to the shape of the lid (Fig. 91/1113). This principles is only broken in a small series of nearly identical vessels, where the composition is divided into vertically oriented segments; such vessels were found in Traian-dealul Viei, Slobodka-Zapadnaya, and Timkovo (Fig. 91/89) (Marinescu-Blcu 1974: Fig. 30/1; 1994). Vessels featuring complete composition are comparatively few in number: they are mostly represented by pear-shaped (grain storage) vessels and their lids or, in rarer cases, by beakers. Along with them, the same sites contain numerous pottery articles decorated with simplified versions of the same patterns. The ceramic assemblage of the well-known Precucuteni II settlement of Floreti comprises, in addition to complete images (Fig. 91/1), a number of their stylizations. The very arc-shaped figures of snakes become simplified: their ends lose their graphic shapes; the heads are rendered as triangles (Fig. 91/5) or disappear altogether (Fig. 91/16). In some cases, additional wavy lines separating these triangles appear between them (Fig. 91/17). This schematization is primarily determined by the manner in which snake-like figures are arranged in the horizontal decoration zone on the bodies of the vessels. The snakes appear to grow out of lower and upper borders of the zone and are often attached to the border with a connector, which imparts a sub-triIn this case, the most plausible interpretation was apparently suggested by V.I.Balabina who compared these images with actual anatomy of snakes. A snake skull has a peculiar horseshoelike shape with jaw articulations extended backwards ( 1998: 141-143, Fig. 2/12).  Attempts to circular unfolding of patternstheir representation in a plane view from above or from below (, 1984: 98)do not appear to be quite successful. An elevated view, which is acceptable for some lids and internal decor of bowl surfaces, introduces significant distortions into the patterns provided on vessel bodies (that may sometimes have nearly cylindrical shapes). Besides, the original side view is also suggested by special lines that divide decorative patterns of vessel bodies into horizontal zones; the lowermost of these zones cannot be seen from above. A circular unfolding of helical patterns makes appear a wide range of new images (crosses, diamonds, swastikas, etc.), which, in its turn, gives rise to an entire spectrum of new subjective interpretations of the pattern (, 1984: 98100, 104).


 60

angular shape to their bodies. Another additional teardropshaped or circular decorative element is formed at the base of this triangle (Fig. 91/7). Further schematization of the snakes results in appearance of figures shaped as oblong ellipses that are formed by junction of vertices of sub-triangular figures (Fig. 92/3, 12), the wave (Fig. 92/9), tangents, circles and triangles (Fig. 91/1617; 92/68, 10). Volutes are formed directly out of the snakes. The bands that makes bodies of snakes are first reduced, as in the decoration of the well-known pear-shaped vessel from Lenkovtsy (Fig. 91/15) and of a number of articles from Early Tripolye sites of Alexandrovka group ( et al. 1989: Fig. 7/1011), and then disappear altogether, as in the stylizations of later types (Fig. 91/13; 92/11; 93/2). The same variants of schematization are repeatedly reproduced in Tripolye BI decorations, e.g. in those found on vessels from Cuconetii Veche (Fig. 48/1, 49, see Chapter 4 above). Simultaneously, additional figures are formed: the teardrop-shaped element may comprise another snake head (Fig. 91/11, 12; 54/89; 55/1). Thus, in addition to the main series of decorative figures (the dominant of the pattern), supplementary series are produced that use the dominant as a symmetry axis (Fig. 92/16; 93/1; 94/12). Schematization of decorative patterns was not solely defined by simplification in their replication over series of articles. It was also affected by some other important factors; one of them is the difference in widths of decoration zones corresponding to different structural parts of the vessels. While the wider zone of the body allows twisting the snakes in multiple-curl helices, the narrower zones of the neck and the rim in most cases only permit accommodating stylized compositions in them. The same holds true concerning different degrees of stylization of decors in large- and small-size vessels. It explains the highly stylized decorations of beakers that are usually of smaller size. Later on, schematic patterns become rigidly associated with specific forms of vessels. Besides, differences in skills of individual craftsmen must be taken into account, as more schematically rendered compositions could subsequently serve as prototypes for other masters. Initially, original images can still be recognized or guessed; but later on, the meaning of such images might fall into oblivion, and reproduction is gradually replaced with a simple copying of models, while the decorative aspect of decoration grows stronger at the expense of the semantic one ( 1949: 92). On the other hand, larger or lesser extent of stylization of figures, their deviations from the original may be meaningless for the craftsman himself: while still understanding the meaning, he may render it in any arbitrary form, although remaining within the framework of the existing tradition. Thus, by the end of PrecucuteniTripolye A period, a diversity of decoration forms and motifs is observed, which corresponds to various degrees of schematization of initial forms. On the other hand, certain visual standards and canons are developed that regulate the decoration of each pottery form. The most developed helical composition, often comprising images of snakes that are the most similar to original conventionally realistic prototypes, are

used in bodies of large pear-shaped vessels, jugs, or pots. Bowls are ornate with patterns of arched figures or waves. Beakers are adorned with simplified compositions of slanted lines, waves, scallops, etc. An example of such a standardization of articles can be seen in the set of vessels discovered in Crbuna settle-

ment belonging to Precucuteni III period (excavated by T.S.Passek in 1962). Pottery assemblage found in one of the ditches consists of several tens of vessels. Several types of beakers and the scoops form series consisting of 3 to 12 practically identical items each (see 1998: 5152, Fig. 4044).

6.2. Helical patterns in Tripolye BICucuteni period

Compared with the preceding period, that of Tripolye BICucuteni A is distinguished by major changes in decoration techniques and, therefore, in decorative figures and their compositions. The most important innovation of the time is represented by the appearing polychromatic painting. The problem of appearance of painting technology in Tripolye-Cucuteni is not yet definitively solved. Two sources are assumed to have existed. The earlier-type bichromy most probably came to the area under the influence of Gumelnia culture that existed in Lower Danube Lands in parallel to Tripolye (Dumitrescu et al. 1983: 114). Origins of polychromatic painting are attributed by some Romanian and Moldavian researchers to Petreti culture in Transylvania (see Ellis 1984; 1989, etc.). There is nothing unexpected in the appearance of painting. The principle of using paint in pottery decoration was well-known to Precucuteni culture: drawings would frequently be filled with a white paste or painted with red ochre. But the propagation of polychromatic painted decorations brought about noticeable changes in pottery technologies. In particular, it entailed the use of a different firing environment: reducing firing that yielded dark-grey surfaces was replaced with oxidizing firing, which resulted in appearance of vessels of light tints. Light-colored surfaces, often additionally coated with white or cream-colored engobe, provide for a better apprehension of paints. Comparative analysis of corresponding relief and painted compositions helps answering the question of origins of painting. It is logical to assume that copying of incised patterns into painting registers the implementation of new technologies, rather than a drastic change or an inflow of foreign population groups that could bring along new traditions of technologies and decorations. In some cases, e.g. in Hbeti, Izvoare, and other sites of Central and Carpathian local variants of the culture, decorations manifest a continuous genetic development line, where figures of Early Tripolye snakes corresponding to analogous figures of relief decorations can be deciphered in painted patterns (Fig. 92/1416; 77/3, 8, 11, 15, 15a; 78/2, 3, 7; 79/12). Only several patterns composed of multi-curl S-shaped helices do not comply with this notion. They originate from assemblages of Carpathian sites of Izvoare II, Trpeti, and Frumuica, where they are present along with decorations similar to Precucuteni prototypes (see Vulpe 1957: Fig. 139/1, 150, 177/1, 188/3; Matas 1946: pl. VI/1617, XXIV/178; XXX/256; Marinescu-Blcu 1981: Fig. 174/1,4, 176, 181/16). These later-type compositions cannot be directly derived from Early Tripolye snakes. Such complex, stylized helical patterns could quite probable appear in Tripolye-Cucuteni along with the painting, already in an accomplished form. Problem of their origins is yet to be solved. Indeed, painted patterns made of running helices were already represented in Early Neolithic Starevo-Kros-Cri culture (see Nica 1987: Fig. 3, pl. II,1; Dimitrijevi 1974: Tables VII/11, 1823, IX/16, XVI/5, 9, XIX/7); they were also found in Petreti culture (Paul 1995). The main changes that takes place in pottery decoration with the transition towards the use of paints is related to its reversibility: conversion of background into pattern and vice versa. This composition principle allows both the decor and the background areas to be perceived as decorative figures. Thus, it assumes a semantic equivalence between the background and the actively applied composition, interchangeability of structural elements of the decoration field during creation and reading of the composition ( 1981: 136). The reversibility was first described by V.N.Chernetsov on band decorations of Ugric peoples from the basin of Ob river, Siberia ( 1948). However, in studying the rich TripolyeCucuteni decorations, the reversibility phenomenon was virtually unconsidered, although it was noted by M.Ya.Rudinski as early as 1920s ( 1930: 244245). Early Tripolye decors are built upon a correlation between hatched incised patterns (based on snake figure prototypes) and pattern-free zones that form the background field. As the painting technique propagates, background areas start playing the role of decorative figures, while the snake-derived figures become background. It can be especially clearly seen in the examples of development of patterns in the form of S-shaped helices (Fig. 93) that probably originated out of versions of compositions with joining heads of the snakes (Fig. 77/5, 7; 78/5; 79/3). Reversibility of patterns could be stimulated by introduction of a fundamentally different technique of decor application: painting with a paintbrush rather than drawing of the pattern with a sharp appliance over a dried surface. Use of paints and brushes alters the very approach to decoration; makes it more liberal and allows varying paints when designing the background and the decorative figures. Conversions between positive and negative images based on changes in the sequence of painting of figures and background, which results in the appearance of decors where colors of the pattern and the background change places (Fig. 79/1, 1, 7), also contributed to the advent of reversible decorations. Process of reversibility-based mutations of helical patterns was actively going on at the initial stages of Tripolye BICucuteni A period. Presence of archaic samples, where painting copies the incised pattern, and the perception of background and pattern can still be ambiguous, is a distinctive feature of assemblages of Izvoare II1, Frumu-

 61

ica, Hbeti, Trueti, Cucuteni A, Rusetii Nou, and Cuconetii Vechi. It is in these settlements that the widest variety of forms of pottery decoration is registered, which is a visual proof of a peak of creative activity of craftsmen, marking the advent of new technologies. This high point of decorative arts in Tripolye BI period apparently was not limited to the pottery industry, but also concerned adorning of articles made of different materials. These products, in their turn, affected decorative patterns used in clay ware. For example, based on the presence of analogous helical patterns in fabrics, one of structural principles of decorative composition can be explained. This is the principle of pattern cutting, where the decoration field only accommodates a part of the composition that can be continued off-screen, delimited by the lines dividing the decoration zone. This principle is the most strikingly represented in the handles of spoons and scoops bearing decorative patterns that seem to be cut out from a common field according to their subtriangular shape. Extensive sets of such spoons were collected in Hbeti and Frumuica (Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. CVII; Matas 1946: pl. XLIIXLVIII). Cutting of compositions with horizontal zone-delimiting lines is also typical for patterns decorating bodies of vessels (Fig. 30/5, 6; 31/1; 69/36; 93/2, 3). Another arrangement principle for decorative elements, also originating from textile appliques, is laying a series of helices that form the pattern dominant over rows of lesser helices that play the role of additional elements. This technique is especially typical in North-Moldavian pottery (Fig. 30/6, 10; 41/4). Forming compositions out of multi-curl running helices whose ends overlay each others in opposing motion ( 1990) gradually becomes the main development direction of decorative patterns. New versions of stylization, such as rings or scallops (Fig. 32/7; 33/7; 34/2, 6; 49/23; 92/10, etc.) appear on this basis. Compositions of serially arranged S-shaped helices and waves also undergo changes. On the other hand, some patterns mainly rendered in incised-decoration technique remain virtually unchanged ever since the Early Tripolye time. Reversible decors become firmly established in Tripolye pottery during Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni A4 stage (sites of Drgueni, Drua I, Duruitoarea Nou, Jura, Bereti). It marks a shift towards perceiving S-shaped helices as decorative figures rather than background elements. Original motifs become definitely lost in the interlaces of multi-curl helices (Fig. 93; 43/2, 68 etc.). In parallel with this process, additional elements located in the spaces between the dominant helices become more varied. In addition to circles and teardrop-shaped figures that already appeared in Early Tripolye period, basic patterns are now supplemented with S-shaped helices and their fragments, scallops, and angular shapes (Fig. 51/12; 93/12; 94/12, etc.). In modifications of the latest types (Cucuteni A and Jura settlements), additional elements occupy as large an area as the dominant, and form another row of decorative figures (Fig. 70/8, 9; 71/2; 94/4, 6). Based on this trend, some of the sites (Cucuteni A, Frumuica, Trueti, Izvoare II) feature a novel technique: multiplication of series of dominants within a common decoration zone (Fig. 94/3, 5). These changes

 62

result in development of the so-called free style of decoration, where a single decoration zone covers the entire surface of a vessel (see Schmidt 1932: Table 3/2; Crmaru 1977: Fig. 22/6, 27/4, etc.) Said modifications of additional ele-ments bring about the destruction of the symmetrical structure of pattern composition that is comparatively frequently to be found in the vessels of Tripolye BI/2 stage (Duruitoarea Vechi: Fig. 41/4; Vrtic XII: Fig. 40/2; Brnzeni IV: Fig. 43/2; 44/3; Niezwiska II: Fig. 64/1; Jura: Fig. 68/3; Izvoare II2: Fig. 78/11). In addition to the general tendency of disappearance of initial forms, development of decorations during Tripolye BICucuteni A period was also defined by segmentation of the culture into local variants. Transition towards painting took place differently in different site groups; decorative compositions also developed accordingly. For example, in the Central Moldovan site of Hbeti, manufacturing traditions of painted and reliefdecorated pottery actively interacted. Relief prototypes are copied with paints, and even the hatching of interstices between decorative figures made with thin red lines reminds of hatched bodies of snake-like figures of relief decors. Eventually, by the end of Cucuteni A period, the more colorful painted pottery almost completely replaced here the ware with decorations composed of incised lines and flutes. In the Central local variant, as well as in the Southern one that was formed based on it, also develops peculiar development trends of decorative compositions. They are characterized by pattern formation out of serially arranged helices and those with overlaying ends, complicated with additional elements composed of helices and their fragments. There are practically no patterns of multi-curl running helices here. Development of pottery decoration in assemblages of settlements belonging to the North-Moldavian local variant, where painting was introduced from territories located further to the South, takes another course. As it was already mentioned, polychromatic painting in this region is frequently distinguished not only by decoration aspect and compositions, but also by modeling technique, which is different from what was typically used in relief-decorated pottery. This suggests that coexistence of the two independent traditions is not so much related to borrowing technologies and using them in the framework of a different decorative tradition, as to appearance of representatives of painted-ware traditions who developed their own methods of pottery manufacturing in local circumstances. The earliest North-Moldavian settlements, such as Trueti and Cucunetii Vechi, feature numerous examples of interaction between the two traditions. This situation is rather typical for assemblages, wherein rigid rules and canons of pottery production and decoration have not yet been established. In later sites, such as Drua I and Drgueni, these traditions are manifested more clearly, since painted pottery becomes a special functional group within their ceramic assemblages: it is limited to the forms of spherical and two-tiered vessels and some of the beakers (see Fig. 73, Drua I). Local tradition of relief decors prevailed here. Interaction of technologies defined the main development trend

of relief decorations in pottery found in these sites: incised pattern combined with painting is transformed into a decor of painted flutes and, losing the relief component, into bichromatic painting. The main pattern is constituted by compositions of running helices. Such compositions are applied appliqu-style over series of smaller helices that play the role of supplementary elements. In some of the later items, this transmission of the pattern dominant to the foreground breaks the borders of the decoration field: helices are no longer cut with delimiting lines, but are extended over theses limits (Vasilevka: Fig. 61/1). In Eastern Tripolye area (Bug Lands and Bug-Dniester interfluves), painted pottery of the time is represented by a group of articles imported from Pruth-Dniester region. These include imported Hbeti-type pottery in Berezovskaya GES and Krasnostavka beaker imported from Northern Moldavia. The local paintingcoloring of relief fragments with ochreis of a much inferior quality. Absence of own painted ceramics may probably be attributed both to domination of local traditions and to absence of some components necessary for paint production (or to insufficient knowledge on some specific details of painting technologies). The traditionalist mood of people of the Eastern local variant is quite understandable: lower population density and, therefore, less intensive contacts between isolated groups of population favored conservation of traditions and reproduction of archaic decoration schemes. Reminiscences of Early Tripolye snakes with cutout tongues in relief patterns are preserved here up to the period of Cucuteni ABTripolye BII; for instance, they can be seen in Klischev (, 1992: . 42/2,4). Despite the wide diversity of versions of helical patterns, the general dynamics of decor mutations during Tripolye BICucuteni A period was defined by two main tendencies of different directions. One of them consisted of stylizing the main decor elements and the ever growing deviation from the prototypes; the elements themselves can become more complicated in this process, as e.g. the appearance of multi-curl helices manifests. The other trend lies in development and complication of supplementary decor elements, which results in more decorative interpretation of images. These trends have their consequences in the process of pattern simplification noticeable during the later period (Tripolye BIICucuteni AB), where the running helices are transformed into Tangentenkreisband patterns composed of circles interconnected with diagonal lines (Fig. 94/78). This schematization process was repeatedly carried out before; here it is however accompanied with a parallel reduction of decorative dominants that are replaced with previously supplementary elements that come to cover the entire zone of decoration. This is the way in which, for instance, vessel decorations are transformed in

Drgnti group of settlements. Oval figures that were the main elements of earlier compositions disappear in a decor from the later site of Drgneti-Curtea Boiereasc; only connecting lines between them remain in place (Fig. 94/9, 10; see 1997; 1999: 155). A particular case of this trend of decor evolution is represented by the so-called face-like images appearing as a result of schematization of helical patterns. These images consist of a pair of oval figures connected with arcs that bear a distant resemblance to the eyes of some sort of a fabulous face, which allowed B.A.Rybakov considering them as schematic representations of facial images (see 1965). Schematization of decor patterns is a result of standardization of pottery manufacturing process, especially distinctly manifested in Tripolye BIICI period. Marking elements, represented by dots located between the ends of helices or in their middle parts and applied before the rest of the decoration, can clearly be seen in decorative patterns of that time (they were noted by the author in the materials from Bodaki, Majdanetskoye, and Talyanki; on similar marking on vessels in Neolithic China, see 1981). This schematization and stylization of decor elements and compositions suggests that their initial meaning was lost. This is further confirmed by the fact that the schemes produced as a result of transformation of helical patterns become in Tripolye BIICI literally overgrown with numerous additional symbols and images, including anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures ( 1993: 9294, Fig. 12) that impart an entirely different meaning to these patterns. Since the snake-like figures that were the basis of helical patterns cease to be readable as early as Tripolye BICucuteni A, it is at this time that their original meaning gradually becomes forgotten. During Tripolye BI/1 Cucuteni A12A3 period, the active implementation of innovations in decoration technologies related to the advent of painting is accompanied with a peak of creative activity of pottery craftsmen. Traditional motifs are reproduced using various technological methods; experiments with reversible patterns become especially widespread. On the other hand, segmentation of the culture into several local variants produces individual ways of decoration development within each local variant. During the next stage of Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni A4, these transformation of decors become traditionally fixed, which results in development of peculiar norms of pottery decoration in each of the local variants of the culture. Initial motifs become virtually unrecognizable at this stage, which apparently also indicates corresponding changes in interpretation of these motifs. If this is true, then we have to conclude that in the end of Tripolye BICucuteni A period, significant changes of the culture take place, possibly caused by external as well as internal factors.

 63

CHAPTER 7 TRIPOLYE BICUCUTENI A AND NEIGHBORING CULTURES: SYNCHRONIZATION AND INTERRELATIONS

7.1. Tripolye-Cucuteni in the range of painted-pottery cultures of Balkan-Carpathian region: the Southern connections
The issue of connections between Tripolye and early agricultural painted pottery cultures of Balkan-Carpathian region should not be considered so much from the point of view of their reciprocal imports (i.e. various forms of exchanges and trade) as with respect to their cultural kinship. Ever since the Precucuteni culture had begun developing in Eastern Carpathian Mountains, the most important influence on its formation was exerted by interrelations with the population of Balkan-Danubian area. According to the results of researches of the earliest Precucuteni assemblages (Traian-dealul Viei, Floreti, Bernashovka etc.), the Boian-Giuleti systems represents one of the components participating in formation of this culture ( 1989: 172, 197). The same Boian culture plays the role of a genetic sub-foundation of Gumelnia culture developed in Lower Danube Lands (Coma 1987b). Contacts to Gumelnia culture were actively maintained throughout the period of Tripolye Precucuteni III. They were primarily related to close connections between representatives of both cultures implemented in manufacturing and exchange of metallic products. Tripolye and Gumelnia cultures were parts of a common Balkan-Carpathian metallurgical province (see 1978a; 1978b; 1998), as confirmed by numerous finds of articles manufactured by Balkan metallurgists in Tripolye-Cucuteni area, including the famous Crbu-na hoard, which comprises 444 copper articles (see 1998). Similitude of cultural traditions of Tripolye Precucuteni and Gumelnia cultures, especially in the case of one of the local variants of the latter, immediately adjacent to Precucuteni area, that includes the sites of BolgradAldeni type, is also manifested in pottery. A wide range of common morphological, decorative, and technological features can be distinguished in ceramics: 1) similar sets of pottery forms, including vessels with lids, jugs, beakers, bowls, monocular supports, as well as rough-surface cauldron-like vessels (belonging to the so-called kitchenware pottery); 2) predominant flat-bottom manufacturing tradition in pottery of both cultures, clearly illustrated by beakers and pots that typically have small concave bototms; 3) similar designs of vessel elements (rims and types of joints between rims and bodies; handles, etc.) that also indicate that both cultural systems were initially formed in a common cultural environments; 4) common techniques of application of relief decorations, performed over slightly dried surfaces of vessels; 5) extensive use of polishing in finishing and decoration of vessels; decorative effects achieved by combining polished and rough surface areas; 6) use of red ochre for coloring unpolished surface regions; and 7) prevailing firing in reducing environment, which gives the pottery various shades of grey and dark-brown. Connections between Precucuteni and Gumelnia cultures are registered in a large amount of reciprocally imported articles (see Titov 1971; Coma 1987a; 1997). Fragments of Precucuteni pottery were found e.g. in Vidra, Tangru, Mgurele, and Novonekrasovka I (Rosetti 1934; Berciu 1961: 413414, Fig. 189/6; 256; Marinescu-Blcu 1974: 136137; Marinescu-Blcu 1978; 1983). On the other hand, Gumelnia elements were noted in a number of ceramic articles from Traian-dealul Fntnilor II, Aleksandrovka, Hansk, and Bagrineti VII (Coma 1987a: 82; et al. 1989; 1983; 1992: 5657). Some of these items may be considered to be imitations; others were directly imported. Imported vessels of Gumelnia type were also found in Crbuna, near the location where the well-known hoard was discovered ( 1998: 6566, Fig. 46/45). It should be noted that the influence of Gumelnia culture was not only manifested in the materials of the sites located the most closely to its area: a fragment of an imported black-polished Gumelnia bowl was found in Bernovo-Luka, one of the latest Early Tripolye settlements of Middle Dniester Lands (Fig. 95/1; State Hermitage Museum, Item 923). In the same site, a fragment of a vessel painted with thin white lines over red background (Fig. 95/3) was found; the rim of a barrel-shaped kitchen vessel features a characteristic collar typical for Gumelnia vessels, where it was used as a lid-stop (Fig. 95/2). Such collars are frequently found in vessels of other Early Tripolye sites (they are present e.g. in Luka-Vrublevetskaya; see 1953: Table 29/, ), which also indicates an influence of traditions of Gumelnia pottery assemblage on Tripolye Precucuteni. Close relationship between Tripolye and Gumelnia is preserved up to the beginning of the next period, the stage of Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 123 (Fig. 96, 97). Series of articles imported from Gumelnia, including those with characteristic graphite painting, were found in Rusetii Noi I ( 1970: 6163, Fig. 13/10; 14/8). A fragment of Gumelnia vessel with a pattern of thin white line over the grey vessel surface was discovered in Jora de Sus settlement (Fig. 95/4). A hoard of golden and copper articles originating from Balkan Mountains was found in

 64

a typically Gumelnia askos-type vessel in the settlement of Brad (Ursachi 1990). In addition to directly imported items, individual cases of influence from Gumelnia traditions were noted by the many researchers in ceramic assemblages of Northern and Eastern Tripolye sites, such as Polivanov Yar III, Berezovskaya GES, etc. ( 1989; 1993). Reciprocally, large amounts of imported Tripolye pottery, mostly belonging to Cucuteni 12 and 3 stages, were also found in Gumelnia sites. Such ites were discovered in Licoteanca (three different settlements), Bneasca, Brilia II, and Rmnicelu. Pottery from these sites as published by Romanian researchers features shapes and decorations of the types that match the pottery from sites belonging to Central and Carpathian local variants of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture (Fig. 95/68) (see Dragomir 1969; Dragomir, 1970; Popovici, Haotti 1990: 297; Haruchi 1959: 226, Fig. 1/5; Haruchi, Dragomir 1957: 7, Fig. 8/7; Haruchi, Bounegru 1997: 93; see also Manzura 1999: 149152, Table 7.5; 2000: 284284, Table 1). Influence of Gumelnia culture was manifested to the greatest extent in the Western part of Cucuteni area, Carpathian region and South-Eastern Transylvania (Frumuica, Izvoare II1, Trpeti, Ariud etc.). During Cucuteni 12 Cucuteni 3 stage, the so-called early bichromatic pottery, or ancient-type bichromy becomes widespread in the region. Ware of this type is decorated with patterns rendered in thin white lines over reddish-brown or grey polished background. Most of such items are pots featuring a break of the profile curve at the joint between the neck and the body. They can be definitely traced back to Gumelnia pottery traditions, as was also noted by a number of Romanian scholars (Dragomir 1970: 8385, Fig. 20; Dragomir 1983: 9192, 112113; Simon 1986). Appearance of this peculiar pottery group in Tripolye-Cucuteni ceramic assemblages appears to be a local phenomenon that took place due to propagation of Gumelnia influence to Eastern Carpathian Mountains. One can assumed that representatives of Gumelnia culture were lured to the region by local deposits of copper ore ( 1998: 2021). Pottery featuring earlier-type bichromy lacks in other parts of Tripolye-Cucuteni area. Close relations between Tripolye and Gumelnia cultures are not solely reflected in pottery. Their traces also can be found in propagation of some types of copper articles developed in Gumelnia metallurgy center to Tripolye-Cucuteni area. One of the most illustrative of these categories is that of copper axe-hammers of Varna and Vidra types, mostly found within the areas of both cultures (Fig. 98/14, 15; 101) (see Coma 1987: 8586; Vulpe 1975; Todorova 1981). In addition to copper axes, reduced clay models of these items are also widespread in Tripolye-Cucuteni. Although the proportions of prototype articles frequently get distorted in such models, some of them, e.g. the clay axes form Cuconetii Vechi I and Cucuteni (Fig. 98/1011) definitely reflect the shapes of Vidra-type axe-hammers. Another sizeable series of fragments of clay axe models, unfortunately fragmented, was found in Hbeti (Fig. 98/1213). Rounded golden and copper pendants decorated with dotted patterns propagate from Gumelnia in the same di-

rection, also covering the territories of both cultures. The most striking examples of such ornaments made of gold are represented among the materials of the well-known Varna necropolis (see 1978). Distribution of these articles reveals the same structural principle: at the periphery of the area, metallic items would frequently be replaced with clay imitations (Fig. 101). Golden pendants, along with copper and clay ones, were found in TripolyeCucuteni within the mentioned Brad hoard (Ursachi 1990). Copper ones were discovered in Hbeti and Crbuna hoards, as well as in Ruel site in the basin of Rut river, as an isolated find (Fig. 98/2, 34) (Dumitrescu 1957: 7376, Fig. 1/1; 1998: 39, Fig. 11/40, 12). Such pendants were frequently depicted hanging on the chest of female figurines, as an attributed of the character represented by the statuette (Fig. 99) (see also Crmaru 1977: 52, 54/2). Clay imitations are much more widespread; they can be found in more than ten sites of Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia cultures (Fig. 98/59). Wide occurrence of copper products in the sites of the earlier period of Tripolye BICucuteni is related to the development of Early Tripolye metal processing center of the first phase of Balkan-Carpathian metallurgic province. Within this center, the production is based on copper procurement from sources located in Thrace-Lower Danube and Tisza-Transylvania regions ( 1993: 25, Map 1; 1994: 153). However, recurring to pottery assemblages, one cannot fail to note that, despite the preservation of close relations between Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia cultures, it is starting from Cucuteni 3 period that the technological progress of Cucuteni-Tripolye pottery industry results in differentiation of respective ceramic assemblages of both cultures. It is related to the appearance of polychromatic painted pottery in Tripolye-Cucuteni. In addition to the advent of polychromatic painting, TripolyeCucuteni assemblages also start to implement novel firing technologies (reducing firing being replaced with oxidizing one); engobe application gradually replaces polishing; forms of pottery change. Besides, decor of the vessels diverges from earlier prototypes (snake-related motifs) ever more, which also reflect changes in semantics of decorative patterns. Significant changes in the directions of cultural influences take place during the next period, Tripolye BI/2 Cucuteni 4. Items imported from Gumelnia are not found in Tripolye-Cucuteni assemblages of this time. Gumelnia-related pottery decorated with linear bichromatic painting apparently cease to exist, too. Besides, novel pottery technologies, shapes and decoration types
The hypothesis stating that the metallic pendants might have had their prototypes in corresponding ceramic articles ( 1998: 26) does not stand up under scrutiny. The dotted (pearllike) decorative pattern could only initially appear in metallic articles, since its application uses the main properties of metals, malleability and plasticity. Besides, this decoration technique is not typical for Tripolye and Gumelnia pottery. With respect to the shape, pendants made of shells or bones with two holes may have been used as prototypes for these, both metallic and ceramic, pendants (Fig. 98/1).


 65

of vessels become widespread within the TripolyeCucuteni area, which results in significant discrepancies between ceramic assemblages of Tripolye BI and Gumelnia cultures. Series of Cucuteni-imported products in the sites of Gumelnia 21 phase represent pottery that is similar to that found in the sites of Bereti-Jura type. Such imported articles were found e.g. in Brilia IIb and Carcaliu (Fig. 95/5, 9) (Haruchi, Dragomir 1957: 226, Fig. 8/16, 8, 10; 9/12; 12/3; Lzurc 1991: 1314, pl. I, II/14). Occurrence of pottery belonging to Cucuteni 4 period in Gumelnia sites is probably caused by southward extension of Tripolye-Cucuteni area, when the Bereti group partially covers the zone of Bolgrad-Aldeni-type sites located in Lower Pruth Lands. The same southward advancement of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is manifested in the results of excavation in Puricani, where a Gumelnia layer is found to overlap a Tripolye-Cucuteni one, the later containing pottery that belongs to Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4 period (Dragomir 1980; Dragomir 1996). Nature of mutual relations between Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia cultures significantly changes at this stage. These changes might be also related to modifications of metallurgical industry that took place at the beginning of the second stage of existence of Balkan-Carpathian metallurgic province (periods Cucuteni , ). At this

time, the metallurgy-related activity of Thrace-Lower Danube region dies out, and Tisza-Transylvania region is promoted to the leading position ( 1993: 29). Contacts of the Middle Tripolye center of metal processing (Cucuteni and , Tripolye III and II) are mostly oriented towards Tisza-Transylvania region, which not only affected the chemistry of metals [], but also affected the types of imported articles, especially those typical for Bodrogkerestur and culture ( 1994: 158159). Development of the local industry is probably reflected in the occurrence of adzeaxes of Ariud type ( 1994: 159); an example of the earliest (transitive?) type of these articles is represented in Drgueni (Crmaru 1977: 2324, Fig. 15/1; Vulpe 1975: 3334). Thus, two stages can be distinguished in the development process of Tripolye-Gumelnia interrelations. The first one, which corresponds to Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 13 period, is a time of an active interaction between the two culture with prevailing Gumelnia influence. It is related to propagation of Thracian metals in Tripolye area. The second stage, corresponding to Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4 period, manifests the attenuation of influence from Gumelnia culture, accompanied with settling of representatives of Tripolye culture in the Northern part of Gumelnia territory.

7.2. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture and Transcarpathian Eneolithic cultures

The problem of relations between Tripolye BICucuteni culture and Transcarpathian population belonging to kindred painted ceramics cultures of European Eneolithic period has been explored to a much lesser extent. The closest Transylvanian neighbor of Cucuteni is the Petreti culture. Most researchers currently believe that it was its influence that caused the appearance of polychromatic painting in Cucuteni pottery (Dumitrescu 1963: 6467; 1989: 46). This opinion is based on the synchronization of the initial stage of Petreti culture to the Giuleti phase of Boian culture and, therefore, to Precucuteni I stage. Based on this, the earlier appearance of painting in Precucuteni pottery with respect to TripolyeCucuteni was established (Coma 1965: 645). This opinion requires a more profound substantiation. In order to decide on the role of Petreti culture in the origins of polychromatic painting of Cucuteni ceramics, a more thoroughly developed synchronization of the two cultures is needed, as well as an exploration of manufacturing and decoration techniques used in Petreti pottery. Collections should also be revised in order to reveal articles imported from Petreti. For instance, the profiling and the decorative pattern suggest that on of the bowls in Izvoare II is such an imported item (Fig. 100) (Vulpe 1957: Fig. 180; .: Paul 1995: pl. VII/6; XXIV .). It might be far from being isolated. Origins of pottery featuring hatched dark-brown painting over light-colored engobe backgroundstyles proto- and (Fig. 35/914, etc.)can definitely be related to Petreti culture. Isolated vessels bearing such painting (mostly spherical ones) were found in pottery assemblages of Tripolye BICucuteni sites. Some of the earliest examples of these types are represented in Trueti, Izvoare II, and Frumuica (Nestor, Petrescu-Dmbovia et. al 1952: Fig. 4/1; Vulpe 1957: Fig. 158/4; Matas 1946: pl. VII/19). This kind of painting gains a wider spread at the closing stage of Cucuteni period: it was encountered in Drgue-ni (Crmaru 1977: 86, Fig. 4851), as well as in Drua, Duruitoarea Nou, Duruitoarea Vechi, and Jura. An analogous decorative style is typical for pottery of Petreti phase (Paul 1995: 274278, pl. IIII). When considering the issue of origins of painted pottery in Tripolye-Cucuteni and foreign-culture influences, one apparently should also examine propagation of meandering patterns in the culture. Meander is not typical in patterns of Precucuteni-Early Tripolye period. Time of occurrence of meandering decorative patterns is limited to the periods of Cucuteni and , and the spreading region is predominantly confined within the Western part of the culture area. Corresponding examples are widely represented in some of the sites described above, e.g. such as Hbeti I, Frumuica I, Trpeti, Cuconetii Vechi, Trueti, Drua, Drgueni, and Jura. Meandering Tripolye-Cucuteni patterns consist of vertical or slanted geometrically rectangular S-shaped helices. Compositions made up of these elements do not represent accomplished individual entities: horizontal delimiters of decoration zones seem to cut stripes out of the pattern, structural components of which may be continued offscreen. Presence of two or four vertical panels dividing the decoration zone that would frequently be connected to vessel handles is another characteristic feature. Unlike the meandering patterns, helical compositions typically have handles inscribed in them.

 66

Geometrization of helical patterns, their transformation into meanders, is apparently caused by the influence of decor of non-ceramic products on decorative patterns of pottery. This influence is exerted, on the one hand, by wood-carving , which features straight-line cutouts of individual segments or cutting thin grooves. Such imitations of wooden articles can be found in vessels belonging to Boian and Vdastra cultures (Fig. 27/12). On the other hand, wicker or woven patterns may also have their impact (Fig. 31/4) (P.M.Kozhin believes that this pattern may reproduce a twilled network). Transposition of non-ceramic decorations onto pottery ware was also widespread among Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures of South-Eastern and Central Europe. A.Niu relates the advent of geometrical patterns in Cucuteni culture to the influence of late linear-band pottery cultures (see Niu 1969). A series of similar patterns is represented in Hungarian Neolithic cultures: in the late linear-band pottery group of Szaklht-Lebi and in Tisza culture (, 1980: 180, 335344, 105; Korek 1989: Table 2/1,3; 5/1,11; 12/16). Vertical dividing panels are quite understandable in such patterns: tetrahedral beakers are typical in Tisza culture, and their paneled decoration was formed naturally, since the edges of the beaker divided the decorated surface into four zones (, 1980: 339, Fig. 196, 208). Hungarian researches assume that meandering patterns had wicker or woven prototypes (Csalog 1955; Patay 1956: 514; Kalicz 1970: 45). Such prototypes might also have existed in wooden ware: the imitative character of tetrahedral shapes of ceramic vessels is evident taking into account the specific features of the clay, which mostly favors manufacturing of objects with rounded horizontal cross-sections. In this connection, another fact should be emphasized: it is during Cucuteni Tripolye I period that tetrahedral vessels propagate in the area of Tripolye sites, i.e. it happens at the time when meandering patterns appear. Facetted vessels are present among the materials from Lenkovtsy, Rusetii Noi, Hbeti, Berezovskaya GES, Bori-sovka, and other sites ( 1959: . XII, 6; 1970: 63; 1967; Dumitrescu et al. 1954: pl. XCIII/15; prospecting materials of 1949 T.S.Passeks Tripolye expedition in Borisovka). Introduction if tetrahe-

dral vessels takes place either simultaneously with, or slightly earlier than, introduction of meandering patterns. In our opinion, one of the boxes found in Drgueni (Crmaru 1977: 54, Fig. 36/1) is of the highest interest in this respect. It is ornate with a meandering pattern with vertical dividers located along the edges of the vessels. This painted decorative patterns is an exact reproduction of incised compositions found on similar items of Tisza culture (, 1980: 208). Vertical divider along the edges are also present in another tetrahedral vessel from the same site, although it is ornate with helices (Crmaru 1977: 5354, Fig. 37). Thus, although .Cuco attributed the advent of tetrahedral vessels in TripolyeCucuteni to Gumelnia culture (Cuco 1976), their Transcarpathian origins appear to be more probable. Unfortunately, we presently lack sufficient materials to provide for a clear comparison of Tripolye BICucuteni A with painted-pottery cultures of Central Europe. For instance, synchronization between this period and Tiszapolgar culture have only been so far developed based on circumstantial data and not confirmed by discoveries of any imported pottery objects (Bognar-Kutzin 1972: 206, 208). The synchronization of Cucuteni A with Tisza culture is also possible. For example, some imported ware from Vszt-Mgor is looks like Cucuteni ceramics though the authors of its publication interpreted it as Petreti pottery (Tlas et al. 1987: 88, fig. 5/1). Further exploration of sites located in bordering territories, such as Subcarpathian region and Upper Dniester Lands, might possibly elucidate this situation. Thus, the available pottery materials allow assuming that relations between Tripolye-Cucuteni and the range of early agricultural painted-pottery cultures played a major role in development of this culture, as well as in formation of its locally peculiar features. Influences of Gumelnia culture affected the peculiarity of Carpathian sites with their pottery adorned with earlier-type bichromatic painting. Importance of Transcarpathian influences is for the moment difficult to evaluate, existing materials being insufficient for comprehensive comparison of pottery assemblages. However, during Tripolye BICucuteni period, another factor starts playing a major role in the lot of representatives of this culture: the Eastern influence.

7.3. Eastern connections of Tripolye-Cucuteni: the problem of Cucuteni -type pottery

The question of the nature of interactions between the representatives of Tripolye-Cucuteni and other early agricultural cultures of Balkan-Carpathian region and the population of steppe areas located further to the East has recently become subject to the most animated controversies in Eneolithic archaeology of Eastern Europe. It is in Tripolye BI period that early cattle-breading cultures adding up to the joint Srednestogovskaya culture are formed in the vast steppe zone extended between Danube and Volga Lands. Researches who reconstruct possible interrelations between nomads and farmer, while using the same basic material, often reach directly opposite conclusions (e.g. cf. 2000; 2000). Synchronization of Tripolye I to North-Pontic steppe cultures is carried out based on peculiar pottery found in the materials of many Tripolye sites, which contains elements of crushed river clam-shells in its clay mixture. It was distinguished as a special group already by H.Schmidt who labeled it as Cucuteni C-type pottery (Schmidt 1932: 4245). These materials are strikingly different from the rest of Tripolye ceramics, both in shape and decoration of vessels, and in technical and technological parameters. T.G.Movsha examined samples of such pottery found in Solonceni II2 settlement attributed to Cucuteni 1 period and related them to Srednij Stog culture: sites similar to Srednij Stog II situated in Dnieper Nadporozhie (area upstream of Dnieper rapids). This correlation was based on the shell admixture in the clay, the similitude of vessel shapes and decorations, as well as presence of contemporary articles imported from Tripolye in steppe sites

 67

( 1961; 1981; 1993). There are however alternative opinions as to the origins of Cucuteni C ware. For instance, A.Dodd-Opriescu believed it to have appeared as a result of development of Early Tripolye traditions in Dniester Lands and Right-Bank Ukraine (Dodd-Opriescu 1980: 555557). She also keenly criticized the versions of synchronization between Tripolye and Srednij Stog cultures suggested by Soviet archaeologists (Dodd-Opriescu 1983). Besides, some Romanian researchers would relate this pottery to Northern cultures of the forest zone of Neolithic Europe (see Crimaru 1977: 6164). Therefore, to solve the problems of origins and development of this pottery group in Tripolye assemblages, one should not only consider its forms and decors, but also take into account the manufacturing technologies (see 1998; 2001). The shell-tempered pottery is usually few in amount among the materials of Tripolye BI sites: it only makes up to 35% of the total volume of their ceramic assemblages. The most typical form is a pot with a rounded body and a straight, more or less exverted, rim (Fig. 102/1; 103/4). The bottom is flattened, smoothly transforming into the walls (Fig. 103/8). Clam-shells (or ground coquina) were used in the modeling mixture of this pottery as a voluminous lamellar filler. Firing of the vessels was unsteady and carried out at comparatively low temperatures (500600C) in a predominantly reducing environment ( 1984: 144). Shell-tempered pots are also distinguished from the rest of the pottery by some specific features of their modeling methods. They were made using the paddle-andanvil technique, wherein modeling of the vessel involved flattening the walls of a preform composed of clay bands (see 1956: 152; 1964: 5455; , 1974; Shepard 1956: 5960, 183186; Rye 1981: 8485). Walls obtained from the process were only about 0.30.5cm thick. The use of the paddle-and-anvil technique is indicated by flat spots resulting from hits by the paddle that can be found on the surface of the vessels. Seams largely expanded along the joints of the bands provide another characteristic indicator (Fig. 102/6). All more or less large insertions (in this pottery, fragments of clam shells) are arranged in parallel to the vessel surface when seen on the breaks. The peculiar composition of clay mixture might well be related to the modeling technique: the lamellar filler gets densely packed under the effect of paddling and does not disrupt the vessel surface. Paddle-andanvil modeling is not typical for properly Tripolye pottery: trimming the excessive clay was rather used in it for leveling and surface treatment. Another distinguishing feature of C-ware is the roundbottom tradition of manufacturing, also related to the paddle-and-anvil technology. In particular, it van be seen
Use of moulds for modeling, as assumed by T.G.Movsha ( 1981: 6667), has not been so far confirmed by any archaeological finds. Mushroom-shaped objects believed to be moulds for pottery production ( 1981: Fig. 5) should probably be interpreted as clay elements of kilns or building structures.


in Drua materials that the rounded bottom of the preforms was flattened against a flat surface after the finishing, and that its thickness is close to that of the walls. Another method of bottom formation, with adding supplementary pieces of clays, is only represented in Drua site by a couple of inexpressive fragments. It is however clearly noticeable in a vessel from Jura, wherein the small flat bottom is formed by modeling on a narrow band of clay (Fig. 103/8). Presence of the round-bottom manufacturing traditions is further confirmed by properly rounded-bottom vessels found in the materials of many Tripolye sites. For instance, they are available in Solonceni II2 ( 1961: 187190, Fig. 4/12), or in the settlement of Frumuica belonging to Cucuteni 2 phase, where a rounded-bottom vessel is decorated with impressions of a caterpillar die (Matas 1946: pl. XLI, 340; Dodd-Opriescu 1981: 513514, Fig. 1). Fragments of a rounded-bottom vessel were found in Drua I (Fig. 102/3); a number of roundedbottom pots are provided from Rezina settlement in Ungeni Region of Moldavia (excavated by V.M.Bikbaev). It was already mentioned that the round-bottom manufacturing tradition can also be traced in Tripolye painted pottery. However, its origins are not related to shell-tempered ware, where the appearance of the rounded bottom is largely caused by a specific manufacturing technology. When shell-tempered pots were being manufactured, their rims would apparently be attached to ready-made bodies. In most cases, it was done by applying a clay band that was to form the rim to the edge of the body preform, on the inside (Fig. 102/10). The vessel would then be finished using the paddle-and-anvil technique. The edge of the rim that had a rectangular cross-section was decorated with dents or die impressions, i.e. it was leveled by compression rather than by trimming, which reflects the use of common production methods throughout this ware group. Technique of decor application also differs from that used in properly Tripolye ware. The patterns is formed by triangular and rounded pinpoint hollows, impressions of semicircular or toothed dies, and thin incised lines or scratches applied with a toothed die (Fig. 102/1, 6, 7). A decorative pattern is provided on vessel necks and shoulders, or on shoulders alone. It is formed by compositions of horizontal series of die impressions, belts of hanging incised triangles, zigzags, and a slanted network of incised lines (Fig. 102/1, 4, 6, 8). A typical decor consists of wavy or straight-line bands of toothed-die scratches, often bordered with pinpoint hollows (Fig. 102/7, 10; 103/2). Modeled-on knobbles located on the rim or on the shoulders are frequently to be found in the vessels of the group (Fig. 102/2). They might represent an imitation of Tripolye ear-shaped handles. The earliest samples of Cucuteni C ware in TripolyeCucuteni assemblages were found among the materials of Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 3 settlements: Jora de Sus in Moldavia, Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I in Southern Bug Lands (, 1986; ,
I would like to thank V.M.Bikbaev for the provided information and the offered opportunity to explore his materials.


 68

i 1972: 1719, Fig. 7). In Jora de Sus, a cylindrical jar decorated with die impressions was found, along with fragments of several pots (, 1986: 5455, Fig. 1/67). Pottery of Berezovskaya GES settlement either copies the shapes of Tripolye kitchenware or manifests the pot type with an exverted rim that is typical for this group (Fig. 103/13). According to V.N.Danilenkos information, shell-tempered ceramics is also present in Rusetii Noi I (, i 1972: 17). Less expressive crocks with an admixture of ground shells were also found in Luka-Vrublevetskaya ( 1993: 28), but their position with respect to other materials of the site remains unclear. The assemblage from Mirnoye camp site in Lower Danube Lands, which contains Tripolye and shell-tempered pottery, belongs to the same time (, 1981: 1722). All of the earliest sites that feature shell-tempered ware in their collections are situated along the SouthEastern edge of Cucuteni-Tripolye area, at the border between forest and forest-steppe zones (Fig. 104). Northward and north-westward expansion of the occurrence zone of this pottery group takes place during the later stage of Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4. This ware is represented in Central Moldova (Fedeleeni and) Cetreti, in North-Eastern Romania (Drgueni), in Northern Moldavia (Drua I, Duruitoarea Nou, and Putineti), and in Dniester Lands (Jura and Vasilevka) (Fig. 102; 103/4, 8) (Nestor, Zaharia 1968: 1743, Fig. 1/2; Cuco 1985: 6364, Fig. 1/2; Crmaru 1977: 6162, Fig. 42/12; Dumitrescu Vl. 1973: 191193, abb. 5; , 1989: 101, Fig. 2/1517). Cucuteni C ware was also found in the SouthEastern part of Romanian Moldova, in Bereti-dealul Bzanului and Bereti-dealul Bulgarului sites, whose assemblages are analogous to that of Jura (Fig. 103/56) (Dragomir 1982: 422426, Fig. 3/15; 5; Dragomir 1985: 101102, Fig. 19/23; 2021). At the same time, it appears in Bug-Dniester interfluves, in Krasnostavka settlement (Fig. 103/7) ( 1957: 32, 34; 1980: 170171, Fig. 2/13). Thus, the C-type pottery occurs by the end of Tripolye BICucuteni period practically throughout the culture area except the Carpathian region and Upper Dniester Lands (it is not present in Niezwiska II). The shelltempered ware of the time is represented by the pots with rounded bodies and straight rims described above. Despite their joint deposition, nothing relates this ware to Tripolye pottery except the flat bottoms that had undoubtedly appeared under the influence of early agricultural way of life. Out of the whole sizeable series, only one pot found in Drgueni features a Tripolye-style decorative composition of S-shaped helices. It is however rendered in the technique of scratching with a toothed die that is typical for C-type ceramics (Fig. 103/4; Crmaru 1977: Fig. 42/1).

Similar pots exist on during the next period, Tripolye BIICucuteni 1. Quite large a series of such vessels was found in Solonceni II2 and in Corltni settlement in North-Eastern Romania ( 1961; 1998: Fig. 26; Nestor, Zaharia 1968: Fig. 1/1, 39). However, starting from Tripolye BIICucuteni , some significant changes occur in decorations of Cucuteni ware: vertical scratches appear on the rim; pearls, cord- and caterpillar-like patterns are introduced; some of the vessels acquire handles. Simultaneously, there appears bowls manufactured out of shell-tempered clay and imitating the shapes of typical Tripolye biconical and truncated-cone-shaped bowls. Flat-bottom forms prevail. Some of the articles clearly manifest the traces of paddleand-anvil treatment (as noted by the author in Veselyj Kut pottery). However, later, as in the settlement of Bodaki in Volhynia (Tripolye BIICI period, excavated by N.N.Skakun), paddle-and-anvil technique coexists in shell-tempered vessels with the trimming that is typical for properly Tripolye pottery. In this later C-type pottery, transformations are not limited to the decoration: many vessels feature cylindrical modeled-on prominences that probably imitate handles; these, however, are tubular rather than of Tripolye shape (knobs with holes) (Fig. 103/9) (see Schmidt 1932: Tables 22/1; 23/3; 1983: 108, Fig. III, 12). The clam-shell admixture also ceases to be compulsory: for instance, similar pots with admixtures of sand, grass, or chamotte (, 1992: 86). Some of the researches note that during the Middle Tripolye period, the traditional kitchenware made of clay mixtures with chamotte admixtures tends to be replaced with shell-tempered pottery, which is increasingly influenced by Tripolye traditions ( 1961: 196198). Thus, the C-type pottery gradually becomes a special functional ware category within the Tripolye pottery system. However, this process takes a substantially long time. In Cucuteni period, the Cucuteni ware remains an entirely special component of Tripolye pottery assemblages. E.V.Sajko noted that the method of clay mixture thinning with clam-shells represents a totally independent phenomenon ( 1984: 141, 143145). The same can be stated on forming based on paddle-and-anvil technique. Products of this type could not be manufactured by Tripolye craftsmen, since paddle-and-anvil production of pottery requires the knowledge of different technical methods and the use of different tools. Craftsmen working accordThese changes were found in materials from Solonceni II 2, Trpeti III, Traian-dealul Fntnilor III, Shkarovka, Veselyj Kut, and other sites ( 1998: Fig. 7; Marinescu-Blcu 1981: 82, Fig. 203/1; Dumitrescu 1945: 3738, Fig. 18; 1980: 170175, Fig. 2/13; 5).  Sites of Orheiul Vechi, and Trpeti (see 1983: Fig. 15/5; Marinescu-Blcu 1981: Fig. 204/6).  During the Late Tripolye period (CII), further rapprochement between the C-type ceramics and the main group of pottery takes place. Differences are only preserved in the composition of clay mixtures; vessel shapes become nearly identical ( 1980: 55). According to our data drawn from Brnzeni IX collection, articles of both types are predominantly manufactured in the flat-bottom tradition; practically no traces of paddle-and-anvil technique can be revealed.


T.A.Popova believed that these may also be fragments of Gumelnia pottery, its clay mixture often containing limestone admixtures ( 2003: 60). Even if this pottery belongs to C type, the finds from Luka-Vrublevetskaya are not the earliest ones: at least a part of the assemblage is attributed to Tripolye BI, rather than A, period.


 69

ing to traditional rules of this technique have an entirely different perception of clay as a molding material with respect to those using Tripolye technologies. Differences are also manifested at the level of body techniques, i.e. basic movements used during the work (see 1996: 242263). Examples that reflect mutual influence of the two technical and technological groups of pottery are in this period very scarce. Therefore, the possibility of these articles being manufactured by the same population group (Dodd-Opriescu 1980: 555557; Marinescu-Blcu 1981: 88) is out of question. Found samples of C-type pottery may be interpreted as imported articles or as products manufactured in Tripolye settlements by immigrants from a different cultural environment. The latter possibility is suggested both by the appearance of flattened bottoms adapted for use in Tripolye life-style and by isolated imitations of Tripolye decorative patterns (as in the Drgueni vessel described above). Most scholars consider the shell-tempered pottery to indicate the contacts between Tripolye-Cucuteni and Eneolithic steppe cultures ( 1961, 1981, 1998; 1983; 1989; Nestor, Zaharia 1968; Dragomir 1982, etc.). The closest analogs originate from such steppe-zone sites as Sredhij Stog II and Strilcha Skelya. For instance, materials from Layer III of Strilcha Skelya feature the same rounded-wall pots with exverted or straight rims, typically manufactured in the framework of round-bottom tradition (Fig. 105/512). In addition to a sizeable proportion of ground clam-shells in the clay mixture, these vessels also reveal traces of paddle-andanvil technique, which may even result in convex shapes of some of the rims (Fig. 105/7). Several methods of rim manufacturing may be distinguished, but that involving application of a band over the inside edge of the body preform prevails (Fig. 105/5, 6, 9, 11). Similarity with materials of Tripolye sites is also manifested in decoration of this pottery, as noted already by T.G.Movsha ( 1961: 193196). D.Ya.Telegin attributed the sites containing pottery analogous to Cucuteni ware, such as Srednij Stog II, Strilcha Skelya, and Kichkas, to the latest pre-corded (IIC), or Voloshsk, stage of Srednij Stog culture he defined (i 1973: 118124). These sites are currently distinguished by Yu.Ya.Rassamakin as an individual Skelyanskij type of sites, or the Skelyanskaya culture ( 1994; Rassamakin 1994: 3336). Traditions of shell adRather convincing a critique of this point of view, which is only based on formal resemblance between isolated decor elements of this ware and some Early Tripolye samples, was also provided by T.G.Movsha (1998: 126).  The hypothesis of Northern origins of this ware (MarinescuBlcu 1981: 88; Crmaru 1977: 62) is not sufficiently wellfounded. Although shell admixtures were widespread in pottery of Neolithic cultures of forest and forest-steppe zones of Eurasia (it is present e.g. in Bug-Dniester culture), a comparison should take into account the entire set of parameters, including manufacturing technologies, decoration types and shapes. Apart from the shell admixtures in the clay, little connects the pottery of these cultures to C-type ware.  Excavated in 1946 by A.V.Dobrovolski and V.N.Danilenko; stock of Institute of Archaeology, NAS of Ukraine.


mixtures and paddle-and-anvil techniques can be traced farther to the East: up to the pottery found in Khvalynsk cemetery (see , , 1990). Inverse connections are marked by imported Tripolye products; fragments of painted Cucuteni 1 pottery were found in Strilcha Skelya settlement ( 1983: 80; , 1992: 23, Fig. 9/1). It is also quite possible that new decorative motifs appeared in steppe pottery under the influence of Tripolye culture, such as scallops that might be imitating Tripolye helical patterns. As suggested by the resemblance between the pottery assemblages of steppe sites in Dnieper Lands and shelltempered vessels in Tripolye settlements, advent and propagation of C-type ceramics in Tripolye-Cucuteni culture may be considered as an indicator of penetration of steppe elements and, in particular, as an integration of representatives of the steppe tradition into the early agricultural communities, starting from Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 3 stage. The C-type pottery does not only appear in Tripolye settlements, but also in Gumelnia sites of Lower Danube region, such as Taraclia, Novoselskoye I, and Carcaliu ( 1989: 17; , 1990: 9091, Fig. 1/9; 1986; , 1999: 33; Lzurc 1991). In Carcaliu and Novoselskoye I, it occurs along with imported painted Cucuteni A pottery. In Gumelnia assemblages, shell-tempered ceramics also represents a foreign element: both the admixture of broken clam-shells and the paddle-and-anvil formation technique are untypical both in Gumelnia pottery in general and in the Bolgrad-Aldeni variant of this culture. Penetration of steppe groups into the North-Western Pontic region during Cucuteni 3Tripolye BI/1 stage is marked by Tripolye pottery fragments found in the site near the village of Mirnoye in the lower reach of Danube, as well as the beaker from a mound burial near the village of Cainari (, 1981; , 1969). Syncretic sites, such as Giurgiuleti burial ground located near the mouth of Pruth river and providing an assemblage is exceptionally abundant in metallic ware, are formed at intercultural junctions. Specific features of the population group that left this sight might have been conditioned by its dwelling place, located on the road of raw material transit for metal processing. The burial ground can be dated based on the found vessel attributed to Gumelnia 2B1 period (Haheu, Kurciatov 1993). Another indicator of interrelations between early agricultural cultures of Balkan-Carpathian range and the steppe zone is provided by stone horse-head-shaped scepters (see the most comprehensive summary in Govedarica, Kaiser 1996). They are widespread throughout the South of Eastern Europe, from Volga to Danube Lands. Scepters found in Tripolye sites (such as Jora de Sus, Berezovskaya GES, Fedeleeni, Obreni, and Brleleti) fit into a relatively short period of time, within Cucuteni

 70

Chronological correlation between Gumelnia culture and the earliest C-type pottery is also corroborated by finds from Jora de Sus and Rusetii Noi.


34 stage, and coincide with the propagation time of shell-tempered pottery (Fig. 104). The time of the widespread of C-type pottery (Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4 period) also sees the start of cultural transformations along Lower Danube river. They result in disappearance of sites belonging to Bolgrad-Aldeni variant of Gumelnia culture in the region; a part of the territory of this variant is occupied by Bereti group of Tripolye site. Later on, Cernavoda I culture is developed in Lower Danube region, which incorporates, according to the researches, both local Gumelnia traditions and those imported from the steppes (see Morintz, Roman 1973). Dating of the earliest level of Cernavoda I culture was based on ware imported from Tripolye, similar to that originating from sites of the type of Jura and Bereti, found in Hrova (Popovici, Haotti 1990: 293, pl. 1/2, 3; 2, 3/3; 1992: 8990). It is interesting to note that Cucuteni C ware is present in the same level (Popovici, Haotti 1990: 293297, pl. 3/3). It could be brought here, as well as to Carcaliu site of Gumelnia culture, along with Cucuteni pottery. Presence of Cucuteni pottery in Cernavoda I culture layer has been so far only found in Hrova. According to I.V.Manzuras analysis of published materials on this site (Manzura 1999: 106110, Table 7.1), it is highly probable that the Cucuteni pottery could get to the Cernavoda I level from the lower level attributed to Gumelnia culture. What processes are then indicated by appearance of new-type pottery in assemblages of Cucuteni-Tripolye and Gumelnia cultures? Disappearance of Gumelnia culture (or its Bolgrad-Aldeni variant) in Lower Danube region was apparently caused by the arrival of a new population. According to H.Todorova, by the beginning of the final stage of Tripolye BI phase [], the North-Eastern part of Balkan Peninsula becomes the object of the earliest migration of cattle-breeding nomad tribes from South-Russian steppes ( 1986: 188). This is confirmed by the occurrence of Suvorovo group burial sites (including burials with the scepters in Suvorovo and Casimcea) that belong to the Khvalynsk-Srednij Stog intercommunity ( 1986: 6574).

Independently of the assumed function of the scepters, that can range from the traditional interpretation as symbols of power ( 2003b) up to some highly original ones, e.g. as appliances for initiation of women ( 1990), occurrence of the scepters, unlike that of pottery, may be unrelated to any specific population groups representing a single culture, but may rather represent a supra-cultural phenomenon. Both types of the sceptersschematic and realistic onescould also exist simultaneously ( 2003: 39).  V.Ya.Sorokins view stating that steppe tribes expulsed the Bolgrad-Aldeni tribes from their territories, and the latter joined the representatives of PrecucuteniTripolye culture, which influenced the formation of Cucuteni culture ( 1993: 8788; 1989; Sorokin 1994b: 62) is refuted by the chronology of interrelations as designated in the present work. Active contacts between Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia preceded the appearance of steppe elements. Propagation of the latter marks the discontinuance of these interrelations.


 71

However, unlike the Lower Danube region, introduction of steppe elements does not cause significant changes in material culture of Tripolye-Cucuteni. Incorporation of representatives of foreign traditions into the environment of Tripolye communities resulted in occurrence of Cucuteni ware practically throughout the entire culture region. Nevertheless, we believe that drawing conclusions on a wide expansion of cattle-breeding peoples and a warlike situation caused by appearance of cattle-breeding tribes and their penetration into the deeper regions of the agricultural area ( 1999: 198; 2000) would be prematurely at the present stage. Firstly, the presence of foreign culture elements in Tripolye-Cucuteni area does not result in disruption of traditions of pottery production, house construction, or manufacturing of zoo- or anthropomorphic plastic art objects. Nor are the destructive consequences of the steppe expansion proven by the fact that the number of sites belonging to the period of Cucuteni AB is smaller than with the preceding one, Cucuteni Tripolye BI. This may be related to the shorter length of this period (its upper limit being moreover not very clearly defined in the framework of Tripolye-Cucuteni chronology) rather than to destruction of Tripolye settlements by aggressors. Secondly, the high topography of settlements related, to an extent, to their defensive functions is, according to the data of D.Monah and S.Cuco, typical in Romanian territory, not only for the period of (77.8% of sites), but also for the succeeding periods of Cucuteni (72.41%) and (70.51%) (Cuco, Monah 1985: 4243). As for the data on fortification works, they have so far been very few in amount and defined by the scope of excavation activities carried out in individual sites. Besides, V.A.Dergachev clearly demonstrated that most known fortified settlements are not located at the edges of the area as should been expected in the case of a menace existing from the steppe, but rather situated in its center, in the regions of the highest concentration of sites and, therefore, those of the highest density of population ( 2000: Maps 620). Settlements with the largest finds of arrowheads are also concentrated in the same locations ( 2000: Maps 2125). This allows one to conclude that warlike situations arose from a relative overpopulation of the central part of Tripolye-Cucuteni area, as also confirmed by the expansion of the area during the period BI, including its southward growth at the expense of the territories previously occupied by population belonging to Gumelnia culture. Thirdly, no evidence of representatives of a different archaeological culture being present in Tripolye-Cucuteni territories during the considered period has so far been detected, apart from Cucuteni ware and the stone scepters. No burial or dwelling sites related to different cultures have been found in Tripolye-Cucuteni are up to now (see 2000). An alternative version states that, due to changes in natural environment and to overpopulation of the initial area, the early agricultural population was forced to occupy the steppe regions of North-Western Pontic area ( 2000: 285286). Individual groups of Tripolye people also explored the steppe during this era of revo-

lutionary changes, and had to develop the Cucuteni pottery that had a better functionality in new circumstances of changed cultural stereotypes (Manzura 1999: 150). Novel and attractive as this concept may be, the assumption of any large-scale migration of Tripolye population to steppe areas is not substantiated by any sufficiently convincing evidence. Besides, as it was fairly compellingly revealed above, the C-type pottery simply could not spontaneously appear in Tripolye environment. How could one then reconstruct the situation that existed in North-Western Pontic region during Cucuteni Tripolye BI period? Based on the traced cultural interrelations, the following version of development of intercultural interactions might be assumed. An active development of interrelation system between Tripolye and Gumelnia cultures takes place during the periods Tripolye Precucuteni III and Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 13. The same time sees the high point of development of Balkan copper metallurgy, accompanied by formation of complex social hierarchies. These social structures are reflected in materials from Varna cemetery, comprising the burials of kings-priests, exceptionally rich in assortment of articles ( 1978; , 1997, etc.) The sphere of influence of the Balkan metallurgical center and the related missed civilization covers both representatives of Tripolye culture and the population of the Pontic steppe zone, where it produces such sites as Giurgiuleti burial ground or Novodanilovka-type burials (Haheu, Kurciatov 1993; see the comprehensive summary on Novodanilovka sites in: et al. 2001). Chronology of Novodanilovka sites that contain a significant amount of items made of Balkan copper (Yu.Ya.Rassamakin considers them to be a part of Skelya culture) matches the considered Tripolye BICucuteni period.

Metal-processing technologies are in these sites at a much lower (apprentice-grade) level than with Tripolye and Gumelnia cultures ( 1998: 168170, Table 71). Rich Novodanilovka burials might have belonged either to chieftains of cattle-breeding communities of to leaders of clans of craftsmen and metal merchants, peculiar marginal social groups that formed at the periphery of European proto-civilization. In any case, early agricultural cultures that did not exceed the bounds of their respective ecological niches but energetically interacted with their Eastern neighbors via exchanges of people and goods acted as a peculiar catalyst that boosted up the culture genesis in the steppe zone in the South of Eastern Europe. The interrelation system between Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia cultures takes place approximately in the stage of Cucuteni 4Tripolye BI/2. It is then that the sites of Gumelnia culture in Lower Danube region cease to exist, subsequently replaced with Cernavoda I culture. This crisis point could be determined by a wide range of causes, both ecological and social, that resulted in the internal weakness of Balkan-type societies ( 2000b: 140, 146147). One of these causes or, most likely, a consequence of crisis phenomena taking place within the agricultural area, was the expansion of East-originating population into the territories of Danube region. Inflow of steppe population to Tripolye-Cucuteni area is reflected by propagation of Cucuteni ware in Tripolye sites starting from Cucuteni Tripolye BI period. This type of pottery goes on existing there during the subsequent periods. In order to settle the question of its role in development of the culture, a more detailed study of shell-tempered ceramics belonging to later periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is required.

7.4. North-East of Tripolye area: Advancement towards Dnieper river

Interrelations between Eastern Tripolye and Neolithic groups of Middle Dnieper Lands, that can also be traced by ceramic articles imported from Tripolye, had a somewhat different way of development. Series of fragments of Tripolye pottery were first discovered by D.Ya.Telegin during his excavation of sites belonging to DnieperDonets Neolithic culture near the villages of Pischiki and Buzki in Cherkasy region (i 1968: 192, Fig. 58/3; 1971). The source base of this issue was expanded due to the researches carried out in 19871988 by the author, A.V.Detkin and V.P.Grigoriev at the left bank of Dnieper river, in the flooding zone of Kremenchuk reservoir, near the villages of Chapaevka and Chekhovka, Cherkasy district, the Ukraine. Tripolye pottery was found in 6 locations, in diffused settlement of Dnieper-Donets culture, within clusters of Neolithic ceramics. The latter is charThese imported ware were initially attributed to Early Tripolye time. Now, however, after the Borisovka-type sites were attributed to the Tripolye BI period ( 1975a), dating of fragments found in Dnieper-Donets settlements to period BI is beyond any doubt.  I am grateful to V.P.Grigoriev and A.V.Detkin who discovered several such locations for their help in selection of the materials.


 72

acterized by grass admixtures in its clay, as well as by pinhole patterns, pitted or incised ( 1994: 134 135, Fig. 1; i 1997: 47). The neolitic pottery mostly belongs to the stage IIb of Dnieper-Donets culture (according to D.Ya.Telegin) and is similar to that found in other sites of Cherkassy local variant (i 1968: 56106). Tripolye materials are represented in each of the locations by fragments of two or three vessels (the total amount of pottery in such places is usually also rather small, amounting to a few tens of fragments). A broken bowl decorated with an incised pattern (Fig. 106/11) was found in the washed-away settlement of Chapaevka-1. Similarly to other described articles, the bowl is made of clay mixture with sand admixtures; the crock breaks are black or dark-brown, which is generally typical for Eastern Tripolye ceramics. The bowl has a hemispherical body and an exverted funnel-shaped rim. This shape is similar to that of crater-shaped bowls that appear in their accomplished form in Shkarovka-type sites of Tripolye BII period ( 1980: 173, Fig. 3/710). The Chapaevka bowl belongs to an earlier type than its likes found in Shkarovka: the profile curve is smoother, and a handle is attached to the body, which is untypical for later-type forms. The rim bears a composition of slanted ovals,

typical for Tripolye bowls. A similar article was found in Onoprievka settlement belonging to the end of Tripolye BI period (, 1990). Fragments of some more vessels with incised decor were found in Chapaevka-1, such as a bottom of a bowl (or possibly a beaker), a body fragment of another vessel (that could be a pearshaped one), and an edge of a lid (Fig. 106/1213). In Chapaevka-2 site, a fragment of a beaker decorated with flutes combined with impressions of a toothed die was found (Fig. 106/8) along with Neolithic pottery (Fig. 106/910). The decorative composition (diamondshaped figures) links this find to analogous articles from Middle Tripolye settlements of Bug Lands attributed to Tripolye BICucuteni A3 period, such as Bere-zovskaya GES, Sabatinovka I and Pechory (cf. Fig. 82/10; 84/8). Two locations where Tripolye pottery was found along with Neolithic Dnieper-Donets ware are situated near Chekhovka wharf. Part of the profile of a small beaker was found in one of them; the neck of the beaker is decorated with horizontal flutes, and the body, with hardly noticeable slanted ones alternating with impressions of a toothed die (Fig. 106/14). Several more fragments of similar beakers with fluted decorations supplemented with die impressions were found in the same location (Fig. 106/15). These articles also have their analogs in materials of Tripolye BI sites from Bug Lands and Bug-Dniester interfluves. The bomb-like shape of the reconstructed vessel suggests that these articles correspond to the final stage of the period. A fragment of the upper part of a fluted beaker with a handle located under the rim (Fig. 106/16) was found in another location near Chekhovka. Such beakers are typical for Tripolye BI sites, but they also continue to exist later, during Tripolye BII period. They were e.g. found in Shkarovka ( 1980: 173, Fig. 4). Fragments of a small vessel with incised decoration (Fig. 106/1) were found among Neolithic pottery (Fig. 106/35, 7) near the village of Chapaevka in Lipovka Ornithological Reserve. Application technique and composition of the decorative pattern suggest that this find

also belongs to the materials of Eastern Tripolye culture of BI period. Mentioned finds are not isolated: exploration of Molyukhov Bugor settlement (excavated by T.N.Neradenko) revealed crocks attributed to the beginning of Middle Tripolye period located in the lower, Neolithic, layer of the site. The upper layer belonging to Sredhij Stog culture contained imported articles from the later Tripolye CI period ( 2000: 117118). Thus, imported items of Tripolye BI period accompany the development of Neolithic culture in Middle Dnieper Lands, in particular, at the left bank of Dnieper river above the mouth of Sula river. Later Neolithic sites containing pottery imported from Tripolye BIICI were also recently discovered in the same area (see i 1997: 47). Synchronization between Tripolye BI period and Dnieper-Donets Neolithic sites located further to the South, such as Mariupol-type burial grounds, can also be traced. For instance, a Tripolye beaker decorated with flutes combined with toothed-die impressions was found in Nikolsk burial site. D.Ya.Telegin attributed this imported object to Early TripolyePrecucuteni III period ( 1985: 170; 1991: 23, 3132, Fig. 25/5). However, as was already mentioned by N.M.Vinogradova and E.V.Tsvek (see 1983: 80), its shape and decor rather correspond to Borisovka materials belonging to Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 3. Determination of chronological position of imported Tripolye ware from Nikolsk burial site allows assuming a partial synchronism of existence of Mariupol-type burial grounds with the early development stages of steppe Eneolithic cultures. Relations between Tripolye and groups of representatives of Dnieper-Donets culture in Dnieper Lands were apparently of a somewhat different nature from the links with the peoples that left the sites of Skelya type. Such relations are only indicated by imported Tripolye articles. The influence of Dnieper-Donets culture on Tripolye is negligible: there only are isolated finds of Neolithic pottery in Tripolye settlements of Bug-Dnieper interfluves ( 1989: 110).

The author wishes to thank E.V.Tsvek and N.A.Savchenko who offered him an opportunity to examine their materials.


 73

Dating of imported copper items from Nikolsk burial site (the copper ring and beads) to the end of Tripolye , as based on comparison with objects from Carbun hoard ( 1966: 68), could well be extended over the first half of the next period (BI) taking into account the stability of manufacturing traditions concerning metallic articles and the long-time existence of the burial site. Connections between Tripolye and Lower Dnieper Neolithic cultures are also indicated by the fragments of fluted Tripolye pottery found in the lower layer of Strilcha Skelya site. They are not sufficiently distinctive as to allow for a definite attribution and might, quite possibly, belong to Early Tripolye period (, 1992: 23, Fig. 9/2).  Finds of pointed-bottom vessels in Precucuteni settlement of Traiandealul Viei should not be interpreted as resulting from Eastern connections ( 1999: 188, Fig. 12/1718). Small amounts of pointed-bottom vessels, in particular, those shaped as horns of animals, are present in many early agricultural cultures of SouthEastern Europe, including Tripolye-Cucuteni. Vessels of this specific shape might have had a religious functionality.


CONCLUSIONS

Tripolye BICucuteni A period became the flourishing time of the early agricultural culture in South-Eastern Europe. Borders of the culture were already mostly defined during the preceding period of Tripolye APrecucuteni. However, a substantial increase of number of settlements and population density due to an earlier unprecedented demographic growth not only caused a further exploration of the territories included in the area, but also resulted in development of stable site groups that produced the structure of the early agricultural area between Carpathian Mountains and Bug-Dnieper interfluves. The development mechanism of this structure was based on a mobile settling system defined by extensive farming methods. Movement of Tripolye-Cucuteni people groups with periodic changes of settlement locations, exploration of new territories and formation of genetic and spatial connection systems between individual groups within such territories lay the basis of culture segmentation into various different-scale entities, from microgroups of genetically interdependent sites to large cluster forming local variants. Microgroups consisting of settlement chains interconnected with river valleys provide basic elements of the revealed structure. Distances between the settlements fo these microgroups do not exceed 25km; their materials share a common development line but may feature slight chronological differences. Formation of a settlement chain is reconstructed based on comparison of pottery assemblages of sites located along Ciugur river in Northern Moldavia. Non-simultaneity of the sites is also detected in other similar microgroups under study. Structures of a higher order are represented by settlement groups interrelated by common pottery traditions that are manifested in similar forms of ware, technological methods of pottery production and decoration, elements and compositions of decor patterns. Local differences between different sites of Tripolye area arose as early as Precucuteni III Tripolye A period ( 1981: 21; 1989: 184186). They are however manifested to a much greater extent during the subsequent Tripolye BI Cucuteni A period. These distinctions include the division of the culture area into the Eastern and Western (or, more precisely, North-Eastern and South-Western) parts, as noted by most researchers. These parts are distinguished by the development of painted pottery or reliefdecorated ceramics manufacturing, respectively ( 1975; 1981; 1980; 1989). Archaeological materials accumulated up to the present day allow defining five local variants within these two provinces. These are territorial groups of sites featuring similar pottery assemblages. North-Moldavian (sites of Trueti-Cuconeti Vechi and Drgueni-Drua types) and Eastern variants (sites similar to Borisovka and Krasnostavka) form a zone where relief-decorated ware pre-

 74

vails. Southern (Bereti-Jura type sites), Central (Hbeti and Fedeleeni type), and Carpathian variant (IzvoareFedeleeni and Ariud type) are dominated with painted ceramics (Fig. 88, 89, 90). Definition of two stages within Tripolye BICucuteni A period is called forth by evolution stages of pottery assemblages within local groups of sites and changes in territorial structures of local variants, as well as by reorientation of the system of intercultural relations. Each of such stages may include several development phases of ceramic assemblages of the sites that can be traced within local variants and microgroups. In pottery assemblages of Tripolye, decorations of ceramic articles provide the most visual indicator in addition to changes in pottery forms and manufacturing technologies. At the early stage of Cucuteni 13Tripolye I/1, the most important innovation in decoration technique is represented by introduction of polychromatic painting. The Central local variant played the most important role in propagation of polychromatic painted decorations. Painted pottery of Hbeti aspect would reach within the Tripolye area as far North as Middle and Upper Dniester Lands (Darabani I, Gorodnitsa-Gorodische), and as far East as Bug Lands (Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I sites). A wide range of analogies to the painted pottery from Hbeti, Cucuteni A and other Central-Moldavian sites are provided among the ceramics from Trueti, Cuconetii Vechi and other similar sites. Changes in the technique of decor application also engendered changes in decorative compositions and color spectra. However, all sites of Cucuteni 13Tripolye I/1 bear traces of the preceding period. These are expressed both in preserved relief-decorated pottery that had been typical for Precucuteni IIITripolye A period and in painted copies of snake-like patterns that form one of distinguishing features of Early TripolyePrecucuteni ceramics ( 1999: 153, 155). Changes in pottery firing mode, as well as those in application technique of relief decorations that start being made on wetter preforms, also take place simultaneously. Differences between local variants are not yet so striking as in the next stage; however, each of them determines individual trends of pottery development. Intercultural relations and interaction are mostly developed southwards in this stage. Influence of Gumelnia culture (the Bolgrad-Aldeni group) is not only manifested in series of mutually imported objects in pottery assemblages of sites belonging to both cultures, but also in a special group of ware decorated with ancient-type bichromatic painting that was formed in Subcarpathian TripolyeCucuteni settlements under the effect of Gumelnia culture. Besides, Tripolye-Cucuteni culture is included in the sphere of influence of Gumelnia metallurgical center that provided both raw materials for metal processing and fin-

ished goods to the area of the culture ( 1998). At the same time, however, the earliest examples of shell-tempered Cucuteni C pottery are registered in Tripolye sites situated at the Southern edges of the area, at the border between forest-steppe and steppe zones (Berezovskaya GES, Jora de Sus, Rusetii Noi I, Mirnoe). They indicate the contacts to the population of the steppe zone of Northern Pontic area. Development of relations with early agricultural cultures, both Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia, apparently catalyzed in its turn the development of cultures that were to form the KhvalynskSrednij Stog intercommunity of early cattle-breeders of the steppes. In Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4 period, the mentioned innovations in pottery manufacturing technologies (application of relief decor to wetter preforms and oxidizing firing) become widespread throughout the entire area of the culture. In parallel with this process, the reversibility of decorative patterns provokes a shift of semantic accents from snake-like figure towards background areas that acquire the aspect of multi-curl S-shaped helices, as well as towards the various stylized versions of the latter. Thus, development of decorative schemes results in an ever growing estrangement from their original prototypes, which also indicates changes in interpretation of the patterns. Fixation of innovations in local traditions and standardization of pottery forms and decors within local variants result in that, in this time, local distinctions are manifested more strikingly. This can in particular be seen in the development of the North-Moldavian local variant, wherein the ceramic assemblage is characterized by peculiar fluted and bichromatic pottery. In the lower part of Siret-Pruth intefluves, the Southern local variant is formed distinguished by its richly adorned polychromatic ceramics. Propagation of Bereti-Jura type sites southwards and along the border between forest-steppe and steppe zones is related to the expansion of Tripolye-Cucuteni area at the expense of territories previously occupied by BolgradAldeni type sites of Gumelnia culture. Simultaneously, pottery articles imported from Gumelnia, as well as ceramics ornate with the earlier-type bichromatic painting, disappear from Tripolye-Cucuteni assemblages by the end of Cucuteni A period (although imported items of polychromatic pottery of Bereti-Jura type suggest that some Gumelnia settlements went on existing in Lower Danube region). Re-orientation of Tripolye-Cu-

cuteni metal processing industry towards Tisza-Transylvania region probably takes place at the same time ( 1993: 2930). This may be related to cultural transformations starting in Lower Danube Lands, which later resulted in formation of Cernavoda I culture that replaced Gumelnia (Manzura 1993: 2830). On the contrary, Eastern connections of the culture begin to acquire an increasingly large importance during Tripolye BICucuteni 4 period. Finds of shell-tempered Cucuteni C ware become at this time widespread in Tripolye settlements throughout nearly the entire area of the culture. It also marks a presence of representatives of a foreign pottery tradition that can confidently be related to the materials of settlement sites of Dnieper steppes, such as Strilcha Skelya and Srednij Stog II ( 1961; 1998). Could it define the transformation of decors and the changes in their interpretation, which resulted in the loss of the initial meaning of decorative patterns in the cultural environment of Tripolye-Cucuteni? The very existence of a crisis that engulfs the territories adjacent to Lower Danube Lands at the time is quite obvious. Its appearance may be attributed to a complex of causes rather than to a single reason. The development leap that was under way in the area of Gumelnia-Karanovo VI culture was accompanied by a high point of metallurgical industry, as well as by formation of early complex societies with embryos of a political system (as indicated by the differentiation of burials in Varna cemetery). However, fragility and weakness of Balkan societies, what with their economy based on an archaic industrial cycle and inefficient systems of food production ( 2000b: 146147), predetermined the advent of such crises that could be provoked by even the slightest fluctuations of ecological balance, or by internal conflicts that accompanied the demographical growth. Participation of representatives of East-European steppe communities in the events taking place in this crisis was conditioned by the fact that Lower Danube Lands belong to the ecological zone of the steppes. Tripolye-Cucuteni culture, located further to the North, in the forest-steppe zone, was much less affected by this crisis. The large number of unoccupied territories available at the periphery of its area allowed for further extensive exploitation of lands included in its sphere, which provided for further progressive development during the next period of its existence.

 75

Bibliography
Aldea 1967: I.Al.Aldea. Aezrea de tip Petreti de la Seica Mic (r. Media) // Apulum, VI. Alba Iulia, 1967. 2938. Alexandrescu 1961: A.D.Alexandrescu. lefuitoare de os neolitice // SCIV, t. XII, 2, 1961. 339344. Ambrojevici 1933: C.Ambrojevici. Lpoque nolithique de le Bessarabie du Nord-Ouest // Dacia, t. III IV (19271932). Bucureti, 1933. 2445. Berciu 1954: D.Berciu. Asupra problemei asa-numelor sceptre de piatra din RPR // SCIV, t. V, 34, 1954. 343353. Berciu 1961: D.Berciu. Contribuii la problemele neoliticului n Romnia n lumina noilor cercetri. Bucureti, 1961. Blegen et al. 1950: C.W.Blegen, J.L.Caskey, M.Rawson, J.Sperling. Troy. General Introduction the First and Second Settlement. Vol. I. Part 1: text. Princeton, 1950. Bognar-Kutzin 1972: I.Bognar-Kutzin. The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgr Culture in the Carpatian Basin / Archaeologia Hungarica, NS. Vol. XLVIII. Budapest, 1972. Bolomeu, Marinescu-Blcu 1988: A.Bolomeu, S.Marinescu-Blcu. Industria osului n aezarea cucutenian de la Drgueni-Ostrov // SCIVA, t. 39, 4, 1988. Breunig 1987: P.Breunig 1987. 14C-Chronologie des vorderasiatischen, sd- ost- und mittel-europischen Neolitikums. Kln, Wien, Bhlau, 1987. Brudiu 1975: M.Brudiu. Despre dou sceptre de piatra descoperite n Sud-estul Moldovei // SCIVA, t. 26, 2, 1975. 169179. Brudiu, Coman 1979: M.Brudiu, G.Coman. Un noi sceptre de piatra descoperit n Sud-estul Moldovei // SCIVA, t. 30, 1, 1979. 101103. Buttler 1938: W.Buttler 1938. Der Donaulndische und der westische Kulturkreis der jngeren Steinzeit / Handbuch der urgeschichte Deutshlands. Band 2. Berlin und Leipzig, 1938. ikalenko 1927: L.ikalenko. Studie o vvoji ukrajinsk neolithick malovan keramiky. I. Sidlit Petreni v Besarabii // Obzor praehistoricky, t. VVI (19261927). Praha, 1927. 2129. ikalenko 1930: L.ikalenko. Die Bedeutung der Schypenitzer Ansiedlung fr das Verstndnis der Entwicklung der ukrainischen bemalten Keramik // Ksinga pamiko uczczeniu siedemdziesitej rocznicy urodzin prof. Wlodzimierza Demetrykiewicza (pod red. prof. J. Kostrzewskiego). Pozna, 1930. 112. Clarke 1977: D.L.Clarke. Spatial Information in Archaeology // Spatial Archaeology (ed. by D.L.Clarke). London, New-York, St. Francisco, 1977. 132. Coman, Alaiba 1980: G.Coman, R.Alaiba. Spturile arheologice de la Gura Idrici Vaslui // MCA, XIV, 1980. 450453. Coma 1957a: E.Coma. Stadiul cercetarilor cu privere la faza Giuleti a culturii Boian // SCIV, t. VIII, 14, 1957. 2751. Coma 1957b: E.Coma. Cultura Boian n Transilvania // SCIV, t. 16, 4, 1957. 629647. Coma 1974: E.Coma. Istoria comunitatilor culturii Boian. Bucureti, 1974. Coma 1987a: E.Coma. Les relations entre les cultures Cucuteni et Gumelnia // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scientifique ddie au centenaire des premieres dcouvertes de Cucuteni (IaiPiatra Neam, 2428 septembre 1984). Iai, 1987. 8187. Coma 1987b: E.Coma. Neoliticul pe teritoriul Romniei: consideraii. Bucureti, 1987. Crmaru 1970: A.Crmaru. Contribuii la cunoasterea neoliticului din mprejurimile Svenilor (jud. Botoani) // SCIVA, t. 21, 2, 1970. 267285. Crmaru 1977: A.Crmaru. Drgueni. Contribuii la o monografie arheologic. Botoani, 1977. Csalog 1955: J.Csalog. A tiszai muveltseg viszonya a szomszedos ujkkori muveltsegekhez // Folia arheologica, VII. Budapest, 1955. 2344. Cuco 1973: .Cuco. Cramique Nolithique du Muse Archologique de Piatra Neam. Piatra Neam, 1973. Cuco 1976: .Cuco. Vase prizmatice neo- eneolitice // MA, IVV (19721973), 1976. 6772. Cuco 1985: .Cuco. Ceramica de tip C din aria culturii Cucuteni // MA, IXXI (19771979), 1985. 6392. Cuco, Monah 1985: .Cuco, D.Monah. Aezrile culturii Cucuteni dn Romnia. Iai, 1985. DeBoer, Lathrap 1979: W.R.DeBoer, D.W.Lathrap. The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics // Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology (ed. by C.Kramer). New York, 1979. 102138. Dennell 1978: R.Dennell. Early farming in Southern Bulgaria from the VI to the III Millennia B.C. / BAR: International Series, 45. 1978. Dennell, Webley 1979: R.Dennell, D.Webley. Prehistoric Settlement and Land Use in Southern Bulgaria // Palaeoeconomy. Cambridge, 1979. 97109. Dimitrijevi 1974: S.Dimitrijevi. Problem stupnjevanja starcevacke kulture s posebnim obzirom na doprinos junopanonskih nalazita reavanju ovih problema // Poceci ranih zemljoradnickih kultura u Vojvodini i Srpskom Podunavlju. Referati i Koreferati odrzani na simpozijumu decembra 1972 godine u Subotici / Arheologia Iugoslavica, X. Beograd, 1974. Dodd-Opriescu 1980: A.Dodd-Opriescu. Consideraii asupra ceramicii Cucuteni C // SCIVA, t. 31, 4, 1980. 547557. Dodd-Opriescu 1981: A.Dodd-Opriescu. Ceramica ornamentat cu nurul din aria culturilor Cucuteni i Cernavoda I // SCIVA, t. 32, 4, 1981. 511528.

 76

Dodd-Opriescu 1982: A.Dodd-Opriescu. La cramique Cucuteni C. Son origine. Sa signification historico-culturelle // Thracia Praehistorica. Supplementum Pulpudeva, 3. Semaines Philippopolitaines de lhistorie et de la culture thrace. Plovdiv, 49 octobre 1978. Sofia, 1982. 7080. Dodd-Opriescu 1983: A.Dodd-Opriescu. Vecinii estici i nord-estici al triburilor Cucuteni-Tripolie // SCIVA, t. 34, 3, 1983. 222234. Dragomir 1967: I.T.Dragomir. Spturi arheologice la tg. Bereti // Danubius, I. Galai, 1967. 4160. Dragomir 1970: I.T.Dragomir. Aspectul cultural StoicaniAldeni, consideraii asupra ceramicii // Danubius, IV. Galai, 1970. 2591. Dragomir 1980: I.T.Dragomir. Spturi arheologice n aezarea eneolitic de la Puricani, jud. Galai // MCA, XIV, 1980. 109120. Dragomir 1982: I.T.Dragomir. Elemente stepice Cucuteni C descoperite la Bereti (jud. Galai) // SCIVA, t. 33, 4, 1982. 422429. Dragomir 1983: I.T.Dragomir. Eneoliticul din sud-estul Romniei. Aspectul cultural Stoicani-Aldeni. Bucureti, 1983. Dragomir 1985: I.T.Dragomir. Principalele rezultate ale spturilor arheologice de la Bereti Dealul Bulgarului (1981), judeul Galai // MA, IX XI (19771979), 1985. 93139. Dragomir 1987: I.T.Dragomir. Un vase-support cucutenien: La ronde de Bereti // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scientifique ddie au centenaire des premieres dcouvertes de Cucuteni (IaiPiatra Neam, 2428 septembre 1984). Iai, 1987. 289299. Dragomir 1996: I.T.Dragomir. Eneoliticul cucutenian din sudul Moldovei // Cucuteni aujordlui. 110 ans depuis la dcouverte en 1884 du site eponyme (ed. G.Dumitroaia et D.Monah). Bibliotheca Memoria Antiquitatis, II. Piatra Neam, 1996. Dumitrescu 1945: Vl.Dumitrescu. La station prhistorique de Traian // Dacia, t. IXX (19411944). Bucureti, 1945. 11114. Dumitrescu 1957: Vl.Dumitrescu. Le dpt objets de parure de Hbeti et le problme des rapports entre les tribus de la civilisation de Cucuteni et les tribus des steppes Pontiques // Dacia, NS, t. I. Bucureti, 1957. 7396. Dumitrescu 1963: Vl.Dumitrescu. Originea i evolutia culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie // SCIV, t. XIV, 1, 1963. 5178. Dumitrescu 1968: Vl.Dumitrescu. Lart nolithique en Roumanie. Bucarest, 1968. Dumitrescu 1973: Vl.Dumitrescu. Einige Fragen zur Cucuteni-Kultur im Lichte der Ausgrabungen bei Draguseni (NO der Moldau, SR Rumnien) // ZfA. Band 7, 1973. 177196. Dumitrescu 1974a: Vl.Dumitrescu. Aspecte regionale in aria de rspndire a culturii Cucuteni, n cursul primei sale faze de dezvoltare // SCIVA, t. 25, 4, 1974. 545554. Dumitrescu 1974b: Vl.Dumitrescu. Unele probleme ridicate de aezrea cucutenian de la Drgueni

 77

(jud. Botoani) // DTJB, 1, 1974. 3347. Dumitrescu et al. 1954: Vl.Dumitrescu, H. Dumitrescu, M. Petrescu-Dmbovia, N. Gostar. Hbeti. Monografie arheologic. Bucureti, 1954. Dumitrescu et al. 1983: Vl.Dumitrescu, A. Bolomey, F. Mogoanu. Escuisse dune prhistoire de la Roumanie. Bucarest, 1983. Dumitrescu H. 1933: H.Dumitrescu. La station prhistorique de Ruginoasa // Dacia, t. IIIIV (1927 1932). Bucureti, 1933. 5687. Dumitrescu Vl. 1933: Vl.Dumitrescu. La station prhistorique de Bonteti // Dacia, t. IIIIV (1927 1932). Bucureti, 1933. 88114. Early European Agriculture 1982: Early European Agriculture. Its Foundations and Development. Cambridge, 1982. Ellis 1984: L.Ellis. The Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture: A Study in Technology and the Origins of Complex Society / BAR: International Series, 217, 1984. Ellis 1996: L.Ellis. Cultural boundaries and human behavior: Method, theory and Late Neolithic ceramic production in the Carpatian-Pontic region // Cucuteni. 110 ans depuis la dcouverte en 1884 du site eponyme (ed. G.Dumitroaia et D.Monah). Bibliotheca Memoria Antiquitatis, II. Piatra Neam, 1996. 7587. Erich 1965: R.W.Erich. Geographical and Chronological Patterns in East Central Europe // Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago, London, 1965. 403458. Flannery 1976: K.V.Flannery. Evolution of Complex Settlement Systems // The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York, 1976. 162173. Florescu 1959: A.Florescu. antierul arheologic Trueti // MCA, V, 1959. 183187. Florescu, Cpitanu 1969: M.Florescu, V.Cpitanu. Cercetri arheologice de suprefa n judeul Bacu // AM, VI, 1969. 213275. Florescu, Florescu 1960: A.Florescu, M.Florescu. antierul arheologic Trueti // MCA, VII, 1960. 7989. Gimbutas 1987: M.Gimbutas. Old European Deities. With an Emphasis on Images from the Cucuteni Culture // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scientifique ddie au centenaire des premieres dcouvertes de Cucuteni (IaiPiatra Neam, 2428 septembre 1984). Iai, 1987. 8997. Gimbutas 1991: M.Gimbutas. The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco, 1991. Govedarica, Kaiser 1996: B.Govedarica, E.Kaiser. Die neolithischen abstrakten und zoomorphen Steinzepter Sdost- und Osteuropas // EA. Band 2, 1996. 59103. Guthe 1925: C.E.Guthe. Pueblo Pottery Making. A Study at the Village of San Ildefonso / Papers of the Southwestern Expedition, 2. New Haven, 1925. Haheu, Kurciatov 1993: V.Haheu, S.Kurciatov. Cimitriul plan eneolitic de lnga satul Giurgiuleti (considerente preliminare) // RA, 1, 1993. 101114.

Hardin 1979: M.A.Hardin. The Cognitive Basis of Productivity in a Decorative Art Style: Implications of an Ethnographic Study for Archaeologists Taxonomies // Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology (ed. by C.Kramer). New York, 1979. 75101. Haruchi 1959: N.Haruchi. Spturile arheologice de la Brilia // MCA, V, 1959. 221230. Haruchi, Bounegru 1997: N.Haruchi, O.Bounegru. Spturile arheologice de salvare de la Medgidia, jud. Constana (19571958) // Pontica, XXX. Constana, 1997. 17104. Haruchi, Dragomir 1957: N.Haruchi, I.T.Dragomir. Spturile arheologice de la Brilia (reg.Galai, r.Braila) // MCA, III, 1957. 129147. Hckmann 1987: O.Hckmann. Gemeinsamkeiten in der Plastik der Linearkeramik und der Cucutenikultur // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scientifique ddie au centenaire des premieres dcouvertes de Cucuteni (IaiPiatra Neam, 2428 septembre 1984). Iai, 1987. 8997. Horedt et al. 1967: K.Horedt, I.Berciu, I.Paul, I.Raica. Spturile arheologice de la Rahu i Sebe // Apulum, VI. Alba Iulia, 1967. 1127. Istoria Romniei 1960: Istoria Romniei. T. I. Bucureti, 1960. Jastrzbski 1989: S.Jastrzbski. Kultura Cucuteni-Trypole i jej osadnictwo na wyzynie Woynskiej. Lublin, 1989. Kalicz 1970: N.Kalicz. Clay Gods. Budapest, 1970. Kandyba 1936: O.Kandyba. S-spiral in the Decoration of the Dniestro-Danubian Neolithic Pottery // American Journal of Archaeology. Vol. XL, 2. 1936. 228246. Kandyba 1937: O.Kandyba. Schipenitz Kunst und Gerte eines neolitishen Dorfes. Wien, Leipzig, 1937. Korek 1989: J.Korek. Die Thei-kultur in der mittleren und nrdlichen Theigegend // Inventaria praehistorica Hungariae, III. Budapest, 1989. 9124. Kozovsky 1924: L.Kozovsky. Modsza epoka kamienna w Polsce (neolit). Lww, 1924. Kozovsky 1939: L.Kozovsky. Zarys pradziejw Polski poludniowo-wschodniej. Lww, 1939. Kruk 1973: J.Kruk. Studia osadnicze nad Neolitem wyzin lessowych. Wrocaw, 1973. Kruk 1980: J.Kruk. Gospodarka w Polsce PoludniowoWschodniej w VIII tysicleciu p.n.e. Wrocaw, 1980. Lszl 1924: F.Lszl. Les types de vases peints dAriud (Ersd) // Dacia, t. I. Bucureti, 1924. 127. Lszl 1966: A.Lszl. Cercetri arheologice n aezarea Cucuteni AB de la Hui // AM, IV, 1966. 722. Lzurc 1991: E.Lzurc. Ceramica cucutenian n contextul aezrii gumelniene de la Carcaliu (judeul Tulcea) // Peuce, t. X, Vol. III. Tulcea, 1991. 1318. Longacre 1985: W.A.Longacre. Pottery Use-life among the Kalinga, Northern Luzon, the Philippines //

 78

Decoding prehistoric ceramics (ed. by B.A.Nelson). Illinois, 1985. 334346. Majewski 1947: K.Majewski. Studia nad kultur trypilsk / Archeologia, I. Wrocaw, 1947. Makkay 1985: J.Makkay. Diffusionism, Antidiffusionism and Chronology: some general remarks // AA, t. XXXVII, fasc. 12, 1985. 312. Mantu 1998: C.-M.Mantu. Cultura Cucuteni: evoluie, cronologie, legture. Piatra-Neam, 1998. Manzura 1993: I.Manzura. The East-West Interaction in the Mirror of the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age Cultures in the Northwest Pontic // RA, 1, 1993. 2353. Manzura 1999: I.Manzura. The Cernavoda I Culture // The Balkans in Later Prehistory (ed. by L. Nikolova). BAR: International series, 791, 1999. 95174. Marchevici 1994: V.Marchevici. Aezarea culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie de la Rdulenii Vechi (II), R. Moldova // MA, XIX, 1994. 127141. Marchevici 1997: V.Marchevici. Aezarea Cucutenian Stnca lui Harascu // Tyragetia, IVV. Chiinu, 1997. 8194. Marinescu-Blcu 1972: S.Marinescu-Blcu. propos des influences de la culture Precucuteni sur la culturre de Hamangia, a la lumiere de quelques decouvertes inedites de Dobrogea // Dacia, NS, t. XVI. Bucureti, 1972. 5374. Marinescu-Blcu 1974: S.Marinescu-Blcu. Cultura Precucuteni pe teritoriul Romaniei. Bucureti, 1974. Marinescu-Blcu 1977: S.Marinescu-Blcu. Unele probleme ale fazei Cucuteni A, n lumina spturilor arheologice de la Topile // CI, SN. T. VIII, 1977. 125144. Marinescu-Blcu 1978: S.Marinescu-Blcu. Relaii ntre culturile Precucuteni i Gumelnia // Ilfov file de istorie. Bucureti, 1978. Marinescu-Blcu 1981: S.Marinescu-Blcu. Trpeti: from Prehistory to History in Eastern Romania // BAR: International series, 107, 1981. Marinescu-Blcu 1994: S.Marinescu-Blcu. Elemente trzii n ceramica cucutenian de la Drgueni i relaiile acestora cu descoperirile de la Traiandealul Fntnilor // MA, XIX, 1994. 115126. Matas 1938: C.Matas. Cercetari din preistoria judentului Neam // BCMI. Anul XXXI. IulieSeptembre, 1938. 97133. Matas 1941: C.Matas. Deux stations a cramique peinte de Moldavie // Dacia, t. VIIVIII (19371940). Bucureti, 1941. 6983. Matas 1946: C.Matas. Frumuica. Village prhistorique a ceramique peinte dans la oldavie du nord Roumanie. Bucureti, 1946. Maxim-Alaiba 1984: R.Maxim-Alaiba. Locuina nr. 1 din faza Cucuteni A3 de la Dumeti (Vaslui) // AMM, VVI, 1984. 99148. Maxim-Alaiba 1987: R.Maxim-Alaiba. Le complexe de culte de la phase Cucuteni A3 de Dumeti (dp. de Vaslui) // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scientifique ddie au centenaire des premieres dcouvertes de Cu-

cuteni (IaiPiatra Neam, 2428 septembre 1984). Iai, 1987. 269286. Mellaart 1960: J.Mellaart. Anatolia and the Balkans // Antiquity, Vol. XXXIV, No. 136, 1960. 270278. Monah et al. 1980: D.Monah, S.Antonescu, A.Bujor. Raport preliminar asupra cercetrilor arheologice din comuna Poduri, jud. Bacu // MCA, XIV, 1980. 8699. Monah et al. 1982: D.Monah, .Cuco, D.Popovici, S.Antonescu. Spturile arheologice din tell-ul cucutenian Dealul Ghindaru, com. Poduri, jud. Bacu // CA, V, 1982. 922. Morintz, Roman 1973: S.Morintz, P.Roman. ber die bergangsperiode vom Aneolithikum zur Bronzezeit in Romanien // Symposium ber die Enstehung und Chronologie der Badener Kultur. Bratislava, 1973. 259295. Nestor et al. 1952: I.Nestor, M.Petrescu-Dmbovia i colaboratorii. antierul Valea Jijiei // SCIV, t. III, 1952. 19119. Nestor, Zaharia 1968: I.Nestor, E.Zaharia. Sur la periode de transition du neolithique a lage du bronze dans laire des civilizations de Cucuteni et de Gumelnia // Dacia, NS, t. XII. Bucureti, 1968. 1743. Nica 1987: M.Nica. Sur la plus ancienne cramique peinte de lpoque nolithique de Roumanie (les dcouvertes de Crcea et Gradinile) // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scientifique ddie au centenaire des premieres dcouvertes de Cucuteni (Iai Piatra Neam, 2428 septembre 1984). Iai, 1987. Niu 1955: A.Niu. Aezarea cu ceramic de fctur precucutenian de la tg. Negreti // SC Iai. T. VI, 12, 1955. 128. Niu 1969: A.Niu. Cu privire la derivaia unor motive geometrice n ornamentaia ceramicii bandate // AM, VI, 1969. 740. Niu 1980: A.Niu. Criterii actuale pentru clasificarea complexelor ceramice i periodizarea etapelor culturii cucuteniene // CI, NS. T. XI (1978 1979), 1980. 135210. Niu 1984: A.Niu. Formarea i clasificarea grupelor de stil AB i B ale ceramicii pictate Cucuteni-Tripolie. Iai, 1984. Niu 1985: A.Niu. Consideraii asupra stilurilor ceramicii pictate Cucuteni-Tripoliecategorii dinamice ale decorului // AMM, VVI (19831984), 1985. 2768. Palaguta 1998: I.Palaguta. Aezri ale culturii Cucuteni-Tripolie evoluate din bazinul de mijloc al r.Solone // RA, Nr. 2, 1998. 101110. Palaguta 2002: I.Palaguta 2002. Some Results of Studies on Cucuteni-Tripolye Decoration Techniques // Archaeometry 98. Proceedings of the 31st Symposium, Budapest, 27 April1 May 1998. Volumes I & II (Ed. by E. Jerem and K.T. Bir) / BAR, Archaeolingua Central European Series 1. Oxford, 2002. 627629. Palaguta 2003: I.Palaguta. Untersuchungen in der Tripole B1-Siedlung Ttruca Nou III im Dnestr-

 79

Gebiet // Eurasia Antiqua. Band 9. Mainz am Rhein, 2003. 126. Passek 1935: T.Passek. La cramique Tripolienne / . . 122, 1935. Passek 1962: T.Passek. Relations entre lEurope Occsidentale et Orientale lepoque nolithique // VI Congres international des sciences prehistoriques et protohistoriques. Les rapports et les informations des archologues de lURSS. Moscou, 1962. Patay 1956: P.Patay. Szttest utnz dsztsek a rzkori kermin // A Miskolci Herman Ott mzeum kzlemnyei, 7. Miskolc, 1956. 514. Paul 1995: I.Paul. La ceramique peinte de la culture Petreti // Le palolithique et le neolithique de la Roumanie en contexte Europen. Iai, 1995. 272327. Petrescu-Dmbovia 1957: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia. Les principaux rsultats des fouilles de Trueti // ASU Iai. SN. Sec. II, t. III, 12, 1957. 125. Petrescu-Dmbovia 1953: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia. Cetuia dela Stoicani // Materiale arheologice privind istoria veche a R.P.R. Vol. I. Bucureti, 1953. 13155. Petrescu-Dmbovia 1963: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia. Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse der archologischen Ausgrabungen in der neolithishen Siedlung von Trueti (Moldau) // PZ. Band XLI, 1963. 172186. Petrescu-Dmbovia 1965: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia. Evolution de la civilisation de Cucuteni a la lumiere des nouvelles fouilles archologiques de Cucuteni-Biceni // Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche. Vol. XX. Fasc. 1. Firenze, 1965. 157181. Petrescu-Dmbovia 1966: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia. Cucuteni. Bucureti, 1966. Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1954: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia, M.Dinu, A.Florescu, D.Teodoru, M.Zamosteanu. antierul arheologic Trueti // SCIV, t. V, 12, 1954. 733. Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1958: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia, M.Dinu, E.Bold. Cercetri arheologice n podiul Central Moldovenesc // AUIai. SN. Sec. III, t. IV, 1958. 130. Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1962: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia, A.Florescu, M.Florescu. antierul arheologic Trueti // MCA, t. VIII, 1962. 227234. Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia, A.Florescu, M.Florescu. Trueti. Monografie arheologic. Bucureti, Iai, 1999. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Florescu 1959: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia, A. Florescu. Spturile arheologice de la Trueti // MCA, t. VI, 1959. 147155. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Radulescu 1953: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia, M.Radulescu. antierul Trueti // SCIV, t. IV, 12, 1953. 722. Petrescu-Dmbovia, Vleanu 2004: M.Petrescu-Dmbovia, M.-C.Valeanu. Cucuteni-Cetatuie. PiatraNeam, 2004 Piggott 1965: S.Piggott. Ancient Europe from the Begin-

nings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity. Edinburgh, 1965. Popovici 1986: D.Popovici. Cercetrile arheologice de la Mitoc Prul lui Istrati, jud. Botoani, 1981 // C, VII, 1986. 919. Popovici, Haotti 1990: D.Popovici, P.Haotti. Considerations about the Synchronism of the Cernavoda I Culture // Pontica, t. XXIXXII, 19881989. Constana, 1990. 291297. Quitta 1962: H.Quitta. Die bandkeramische Kultschale von Kthen-Geuz // Jahresschrift fr mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte. Bd. 46. Halle (Saale), 1962. 4756. Rassamakin 1994: Yu.Ya.Rassamakin. The Main Directions of the Development of Early Pastoral Societies of Nothern Pontic Zone: 45002450 BC (Pre-yamnaya cultures and Yamnaya culture) // BPS, Vol. 2, 1994. 2970. Renfrew 1973: C.Renfrew. Before Civilization. The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. London, 1973. Renfrew, Bahn 1993: C.Renfrew, P.Bahn. Archaeology. Theories, Methods and Practice. London, New York, 1993. Renfrew, Poston 1979: C.Renfrew, T.Poston. Discontinuities in the Endogenous Change of Settlement Pattern // Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Culture Change. New-York, St. Francisco, London, 1979. Rice 1987: P.M.Rice. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago, 1987. Rosetti 1934: D.V.Rosetti. Spturile dela Vidra (raport preliminar) // Publicaiile muzeului municipiului Bucureti, 1. Bucureti, 1934. Rybicka 1995: M.Rybicka. Przemiany kulturove i osadnicze w III tys. przed. Chr. na Kujawach. Kultura pucharv lejkowatych i amfor kulistych na Pagrach Radziejowskich / Biblioteka Museum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w odzi, 28. d, 1995. Rye 1981: O.S.Rye. Pottery Technology / Manuals on Archaeology, 4. Washington, 1981. Sava et al. 1995: E.Sava, I.Manzura, M.Tcaciuc, S.Kurciatov, V.Bubulici, R.Rabinovici, V.Guchin, R.Alaiba, M.Bdu-Wittenberger. Investigeiile istorico-arheologice efectuate n microzona istorico-natural RudiTtruca NouArioneti (raionul Dondueni, Republica Moldova) // Cercetari arheologice n aria Nord-Trac, I. Bucureti, 1995. 281357. Schmidt 1924: H.Schmidt. Prhistorisches aus Ostasiens // Zeitschrift fr Ethnologie, 5/6. Berlin, 1924. 133157. Schmidt 1932: H.Schmidt. Cucuteni in der oberen Moldau, Rumanien. Die befestigte Siedlung mit bemalten Keramik von der SteinKupferzeit in bis die vollentwickelte Bronzezeit. Berlin, Leipzig, 1932. Shepard 1956: A.O.Shepard. Ceramics for the Archaeologist / Carnegie Institution of Washington. Publication 609. Washington, 1956.

 80

Sherratt 1972: A.G.Sherratt. Socio-economic and Demographic Models for the Neolithic and Bronze Ages of Europe // Models in Archaeology (ed. by D.L. Clarke). London, 1972. 477542. Simon 1986: M.Simon. Unele probleme ale aspectului cultural Stoicani-Aldeni // SCIVA, t. 37, 1, 1986. Sinopoli 1991: C.M.Sinopoli. Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York, 1991. miszko 1939: M.miszko. Tymczasowe sprawozdanie z bada na osadzie neolitycznej w Horodnicy, pow. Horodenka // Sprawozdania z posiedze i czynnoki Polskiej Akademii Umiejetnoci. Krakw, 1939. 6773. Sorochin 1994: V.Sorochin. Civilizaiile eneolitice din Moldova. Chiinu, 1994. Sorochin 1994: V.Sorochin. Culturile eneolitice din Moldova // Thraco-Dacia. T. XV, nr. 12. Bucureti, 1994. 6792. Sorochin 1996: V.Sorochin. Aezarea de tip Cucuteni de la Jora de Sus // AM, XIX, 1996. 919. Sorochin 1997: V.Sorochin. Consideraii referitoare la aezrile fazei Cucuteni ATripolie BI din Ukraina i Republica Moldova // MA, XXI, 1997. 783. Sorochin 2002: V.Sorochin. Aspectul regional Cucutenian Drgueni-Jura. Piatra-Neam, 2002. Tlas et al. 1987: L.Tlas, P.Raczky, N.Kalicz, F.Horvth, J.Korek, K.Hegeds, J.Makkay. The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region: A survey of recent excavations and their findings: Hdmezvsrhely-Gorzsa, Szegvr Tzkves, csd-Kovshalom, Vszt-Mgor, Beret tyjfalu-Herply. Budapest, 1987. Titov 1971: V.S.Titov. Tripolye Culture in the Chronological System of Neolithic and Cooper Age Cultures of South-Eastern and Central Europe // VIII Congres international des sciences prhistoriques et protohistoriques (Belgrade, 1971). Les rapports et les communications de la dlgation des archologiques de lURSS. Moscou, 1971. Todorova 1981: H.Todorova. Die Kupferzeitlichen xte und Beile in Bulgarien / Prhistorische Bronzefunde. Abt. IX, Bd. 14. Mnchen, 1981. Todorova, Tonceva 1975: H.Todorova, G.Tonceva. Die neolithische Pfahlbausiedlung bei Ezerovo im Varnasee // Germania, 53. Berlin, 1975. 3046. Vulpe 1941: R.Vulpe. Les fouilles de Calu // Dacia, t. VII VIII (19371940). Bucureti, 1941. 1367. Vulpe 1953: R.Vulpe. Spturile de la Poineti din 1949 // Materiale Arheologice privind istoria veche a R.P.R. Vol. 1. Bucureti, 1953. 213506. Vulpe 1956: R.Vulpe. Problemele neoliticului carpatoniprovian n lumina spturilor de la Izvoare // SCIV, t. VII, 12, 1956. 5393. Vulpe 1957: R.Vulpe. Izvoare, sapaturile din 19361948. Bucureti, 1957. Vulpe 1975: A.Vulpe. Die xte und Beile in Rumnien, II // Prhistorische Bronzefunde. Abt. IX, Bd. 5. Mnchen, 1975. Vulpe 1986: A.Vulpe. Zur Entstehung der Geto-Dakichen

Zivilisation die Basarabikultur // Dacia, NS, t. 30, 12. Bucureti, 1986. 4989. Vulpe et al. 1953: R.Vulpe i colaboratorii. antierul Corltni // SCIV, t. IV, 1953. Waterbolk 1962: H.T.Waterbolk. The Lower Rhine Basin // In: Courses toward Urban Life. New York, 1962. 227253. Wechler 1994: K.-P.Wechler. Zur Chronologie der Tripolje-Cucuteni-Kultur auf Grund von 14CDatierungen // ZfA. Band 28, 1994. 721. Whittle 1996: A.Whittle. Europe in the Neolithic. Cambridge, 1996. Zaharia et al. 1970: N.Zaharia, M.Petrescu-Dmbovia, Em. Zaharia. Aezri din Moldova. De la paleolitic pn n secolul al XVIII-lea. Bucureti, 1970. Zaharia, Galbenu, Zoltn 1982: E.Zaharia, D.Galbenu, S.Zoltn. Sapaturile arheologice de la Ariusd, jud. Covasna // CA, V, 1982. 37. Zoltn 1951a: S.Zoltn. Spturi din anul 1949 la LeVarhegiu (Trei Scaune) // Materiale i cercetri de istorie veche a Romniei. Bucureti, 1951. 320. Zoltn 1951b: S.Zoltn. Spturi din anul 1949 la Bicsadul-Oltului (Trei Scaune) // Materiale i cercetri de istorie veche a Romniei. Bucureti, 1951. 7593. Zoltn 1987: S.Zoltn. La position dAriud dans le cadre de la civilisation Cucuteni // La civilisation de Cucuteni en contexte Europeen. Session scientifique ddie au centenaire des premieres dcouvertes de Cucuteni (IaiPiatra Neam, 2428 septembre 1984). Iai, 1987. 259261. 1956: ... // . .64. 1956. 149156. et al. 1990: .., .., ... . , 1990. 1961: ... // Dacia, NS, t. V. Bucureti, 1961. 2137. 2002: ... // . . 6. , 2002. ii 1981: ii i i i. , 1981. i 1926a: .i. i i . i, (. i), ii // ii i 1925. , 1926. 6771. i 1926b: .i. i // , . I, 1926. 17. 1982: ... // . , 1982. 185195.

 81

1988: ... I // , 2, 1988. 5872. 1990: ... // - . I . , 1990. , 1990. 142146. 1998: ... // , 2, 1998. 135151. 1957: ... // . .69, 1957. 3139. 1958: ... . , 1958. 1961: ... - // . . ... , 1961. 5668. 1953: ... - ( - - ) / , 38. .-., 1953. 1954: ... 1952 // . . 56, 1954. 104110. 1955: ... // . . 4, 1955. 138139. 1956: ... - // . . 6, 1956. 1317. 1959: ... // . . 9, 1959. 4346. 1964: ... / VII (, 1964 .). , 1964. 1965: ... - ( ) // , 1, 1965. 4862. 1963: ... // . . I. , 1963. 1990: ... , - // - . I , , 1990. , 1990. 146152. 1988: ...

 // . , 1988. 521. 1931: ... , // . . . VI, . 89. 1931. 1937: ... . , 1937. 1905: .. . . , XIII 1905 . 2- . , 1905. - . 1986: .. -, .., .., .., ... . , 1986. 1992: .. . , , XV XVIII . . 3. , 1992. p 1993: ..p. i ii // pi, 3. , 1993. 1930. p 1998: ... i i ii i // i, 4. , 1998. 7888. p 2003a: ... // Stratum plus, 2 (20012002). , , , , 2003. 141163. p 2003b: ... // Stratum plus, 2 (2001 2002). , , , , 2003. 431446. p, 1984: .., ... // ( ). , 1984. 96104. p, 1987: .., ... - 1980 . // . , 1987. 516. p, 1981: .., ... // - . , 1981. 1722. 1988: ... // , . . IV . . , 1988. 68. i 2003: ..i. i iii. . 2-. , 2003.

 82

1974: ... - (, , ). . . ... . . . , 1974. 1983: ... p-p (, , ). , 1983. , 1982: .., ... // 19771978 ., 1982. 179193. , 1966: .., ... // , 1, , 1966. 1986: ... // , . 185, 1986. 2227. et al. 1988: .., .., .., .., .., ... . , 1988. 1899: ... // , 1112. , 1899. 18. 1910: ... . , 1910. 1922: ... // , 2. , 1922. 178187. 1993: ... i // i, 3. , 1993. 114127. 1995: ... i IVIII . .. i, 1995. , 1967: .., ... I // , 4. , 1967. , i 1972: .., .. i. p ipii i i p // i. .6. , 1972. 320. 1980: ... ( ). , 1980. 1986: ... . , 1986. 1998: ... . , 1998. 1999: ... - . , - // Stratum plus. 2. , , , 1999. 169221.

 2000: ... // Stratum plus. 2. , , , 2000. 2003a: ... // . , 100- . II. -, 2003. 3740. 2003b: ... ( ) // Stratum plus, 2 (20012002). , , , , 2003. 335369. , 1986: .., ... - // . . 1. , 1986. 5465. i 1997: ..i. i i i // 1993 . 1997. 1929: ... // , I. , 1929. 1529. 1952: ... i // , . IV, 1952. 7888. 1971: ... . // , 3, 1971. 217221. 2005: . . -, 2005. 1923: ... . I. . , 1923. 1994: ... i i i // i, 1. , 1994. 8892. , 1992: .., ... . , 1992. , 1989: .., ... // ii i : i XX . ., , . 1989 . , 1989. 7273. 1990: I.I.. i . i i i // VIII i i i. . . i i. -i, 1990. 14. 1993: I.I.. ii- i i // i i i i

 83

i i ( 100-i i). i, 1993. 1517. 1990: ... i // i, 1. , 1990. 8394. 1964: ... i // i. . XVII. , 1964. 1242. 1980: ... ( ). , 1980. 1989: ... . , 1989. 1991: ... - // . , 1991. 2034. , 1989: .., ... p // . . , 1989. 97106. . 1978: .. . , 1978. , 1997: ., .. . , 1997. 1965: ... // . , 1965. 1970: ... // - . , 1970. 8394. 1939: .. i i // i I i. , i; , 1939. 129. 1964: ... . // . , 1964. 255272. 1953: .. ( ). , 1953. 1990: ... // ( ). . , 1990. 1718. 1995: ... . . 2- / . . 2. , 1995. 2001: ... . -, 2001. 1965: .. (). // . , 1965. 1964: ... // . . 101, 1964.

5358. 1967: ... // . . . XXIV. , 1967. 140146. 1981: ... // - . , 1981. 131161. 1984: ... ( ) // . , 1984. 201220. 1987: ... // . , 1987. 80107. 1989: ... // . , 1989. 5470. 1990a: ... ( ). . . ... . . . , 1990. 1990b: ... // . , 1990. 4556. 1990c: ... . ... . , 1989 (.) // , 1. , 1990. 118121. 1991: ... // . , 1991. 129151. 1994: ... // . , 1994. 122128. 2002: ... : , , , // (V . .. V . ..). III . , 2002. 1316. , 1974: .., ... // . . . . , 1974. 112126. 1926: .. i // . . I, 1926. 139164. 1933: ... ii

 84

i i 19301932 . (i i i i i i ii). , 1933. i 1985: ..i. i i i // i. . 49. , 1985. 4952. 1993: ... . . , 1993. 1961: .. // Dacia, NS, t. V. Bucureti, 1961. 3968. 1987: ... - . , 1987. 1947: ... // . . ., 1947. 1951: ... // . . XXXIX, 1951. 127131. 1954: ... i i ii // i i i i / i I i . . II. , 1954. 4966. 1931: ... ( ) // , 3, 1931. 1012. 1991: ... . , 1991. 1940: ... // . . III, 1940. 313. 1949: ... // , . . 13. , 1949. 54110. 1950: ... i i i // i. . III. , 1950. 936. 1989: ... // . . , 1989. 117132. et al. 1997: .., ..i, .I. . i // ii . .1. , 1997. 1940: ... i i (ii-i i) // i . .1. , 1940. - 1994: .-. . , 1994. 1926: .. ii i i // . .

I, 1926. 97112. 1992: ... - // . , 1992. 87101. 2000: ... // Stratum plus. 2. , , , 2000. , 1997: .., ... // . 2830 1997 . , 1997. 7577. , 1990: .., ... . // . , 1990. 7893. 1970: ... I // . .123, 1970. 5668. 1973a: ... // . .2. , 1973. 1973b: ... ( IV). 1973 . // . 5136, 5136. 1973. 1978: ... // 1977 . 1978. 466467. 1981a: ... . , 1981. 1981b: ... IV ( I). 1981 // - () 1981 . . 188/II. , 1981. 1985: ... . , 1985. 1989: ... - // . , 1989. 2636. , 1974: .., ... - // 1973 . 1974. 423424. , 1976: .., ... // 1975 . 1976. 471472. 1980: ... // . ( 1980

 85

.). , 1980. 4042. 1976: ... . , 1976. 1980: ... // . , 1980. 204212. 1982: ... // . . , 1982. 1092. 1990: ... . , 1990. 2000a: ... // ( ). -, 2000. 514. 2000b: ... // ( ). -, 2000. 135166. , 1975: .., ... ( ) // 150 . . . , 1975. 3132. 1990: ... // . , 1990. 3946. 1992: ... VII // 1986 . , 1992. 4558. 1978: ... // , 3, 1978. 928. 1928: ... ( G. Wilke). // . . 29 (5). .. 1928. 1988: ... . () // , 3, 1988. 244248. 1960: ... II ( 1955 .) // . . I (34), 1960. 231248. 1961: ... // , 2, 1961. 186199. 1965: ... 1965. II // . . 105. 91100. 1971a: ... i i

 // i . . 1. , 1971. 165177. 1971b: ... // , 3, 1971. 228234. 1975: ... ( BICI) // . . . . I. , 1975. 6566. 1981: ... // SP, 5/6, 1981. 6172. 1985: ... // . .1. , 1985. 206253. 1993: ... i i i i // i, 3, 1993. . 3651. 1998: ... i-i i i ( ii ) // ii . . CCXXXV. i i ii. i, 1998. 111153. , 1969: .., ... . // . . 115, 1969. 4549. 1996: .. . . : . , 1996. 2000: ... i 1994 // 19941996 . 2000. 116118. 1994: ... i i i // i, 3, 1994. . 149151. 2003: ... // Stratum plus, 2 (20012002). , , , , 2003. 260274. 1994a: ... I ( ) // V . ..V . .. . , 1994. 5152. 1994b: I... i i ii i // i, 1. , 1994. 134137. 1995: ... I // . 8. . 5, 1995. 5163. 1997a: ... . // . 8. . 5, 1997. 111120. 1997b: ... -

 86

BI ( I) // . , 1997. 5069. 1998a: ... - // , 1, 1998. 514. 1998b: ... : I // . 8. . 6, 1998. 122144. 1999a: ... // Stratum plus, 2. , , , 1999. 148159. 1999b: ... ( ) // . 8. . 6, 1999. 6886. 1999c: ... - ( ) // 60 . .. . . . . , 1999. 101104. 2000: ... -: - // , 7, 2000. 5362. 2001: ... : // i- i - ii i i i. , 2001. 3738. 2003: ... // ii -i. i i i. , 2003. 98101. 2004: ... - // : , , . . -, 2004. 105108. 2005a: ... // i i : i II- i i-i i. , 2005. 3840. 2005b: ... // : . . 3. , 2005. 6670.

 2005: ... (I) // i i i i . . 4. , 2005. 7592. 2007: ... : (VIIIII . ..). -, 2007. 1933: ... // . . 100. .., 1933. 329341. 1941: ... i . , 1941. 1947: ... - // . . VIVII, 1947. 1438. 1949: .. . // , 10. .., 1949. 1950: ... // . . XXXII, 1950. 4056. 1951: ... - // . . XXXVII, 1951. 4163. 1952: ... () // . . XLV, 1952. 318. 1953: ... // . . 51, 1953. 4659. 1961: ... () // , 84, 1961. 1964: ... - / VII (, 1964 .). , 1964. , 1959: .., ... R.Vulpe. Izvoare, 1957 () // , 4, 1959. 262268. et al. 1989: .., .., .., ... - . , 1989. 1959: ... // . .. -. . , XLII. , , 1959. 1983: ... . , 1983. et al. 1999: .., .., .., ... - (IVIII . ..) // . , , . 17. , 1999. 3337. 2002: ... : //

 87

. , 100- . I. -, 2002. 6466. 1972: ... IVIII . .. ( ). . . ... . . . , 1972. 1975: ... // 150 . . . . , 1975. 5657. 1979: ... // . .157, 1979. 6972. 1985: ... i ii ( i ) // i. . 52. , 1985. 2232. 2003: ... . . , 2003. 1976: .. . / , VI. , 1976. 1994: ... : // V . .. V . .. . , 1994. 2730. 1993: ... i i // i, 3. , 1993. 101114. , 1999: .., ... i i i i // i, 3. , 1999. 4155. 1994: ... i iii // i, 1. , 1994. 145147. 1982: ... . , 1982. 1930: .. i // i. .III. , 1930. 235259. 1965: ... . II // , 2, 1965. 1333. 1984: .. I // AO 1982 . 1984. 415416. 1985: ... // 1983 . 1985. 459460. 1986: ...

 I // 1984 . 1986. 385386. 1993: ... - ( ). , . , 1993. 1994: ... - // - . - . 4. , 1994. 1998: ... - . , 1998. , 1990: .., ... I // . . I . , 1990. , 1990. 108114. ii 1927: .ii. ii i. I. i, 1927. , 1990: .., ... I - // - . . I . , 1990. 103104. 1984: ... // SP, 7, 1984. 131152. 1957: ... ( ) // , 54, 1957. , 1983: .., ... . -. , 1983. 1983: ... - 1980 . // 19791980 . , 1983. 102111. 1987: ... // , 3, 1987. 207209. 1988: ... - // , . . IV . . , 1988. 2728. 1989a: ... - - // . , 3. , 1989. 4554. 1989b: ... // iii ii i : i XX . ., , . 1989 .

 88

, 1989. 214215. 1990: ... // - . . I . , 1990. , 1990. 94101. 1993: ... // RA, 1, 1993. 8392. 1993: ... . // i i i i i i ( 100-i i). i, 1993. 6163. 1997a: ... - // Vestigii arheologice din Moldova. Chiinu, 1997. 138155. 1997b: ... II // Vestigii arheologice din Moldova. Chiinu, 1997. 122138. 1904: ... . // . .12, 1904. 87118. 1998: ... : // : , , . . , 1998. 6873. 1983: ... - . , 1983. i 1968: ..i. i- . , 1968. i 1973: ..i. i ii. , 1973. 1985: ... - // . .1. , 1985. 156172. 1991: ... . , 1991. 1994: ... // . . , 1994. 7374. et al. 2001: .., .., .. , ... - : . , 2001. , 1992: .., .. . - // , 1, 1992. 1325. 1982: ...

 // 19771978 . 1982. 175179. 1965: ... - // . , 1965. 3545. 1966: ... // . , 1966. 2537. 1996: ... . , 1996. , 1980: .., .. . . , 1980. 1991: ... - // . , 1991. 4759. , 2000: .., ... i i i- ( ). I-i, 2000. 1975: .. , // . , V. , 1975. 5111. 1983: .. . , , 19711974. // / , IX. , 1983. 7104. 1986: .. - . , 1986. 1990: ... - // - . . I . , 1990. , 1990. 166168. 1956: ... . // . . 6, 1956. 1821. 1901: ... // XI 1899 . . 1. , 1901. 736812. 1997: ... - / . . 20, 1997. 1980: ... ( ) // . , 1980. 163185. 1985: ... i i i i- ii // i. . 51. , 1985. 3145. 1987: ... ( ). . . ... . . .

 89

, 1987. 1989: ... - ( ) // . . , 1989. 106117. 1991: ... i ii // 1990 . 1991. 25. 1993: ... i i i i // 1991 . 1993. 1994: ... // - . , 1994. 5595. 1996: ... // , 4, 1996. 3341. 1999: ... ii // i, 3. , 1999. 2840. 2003: ... // ( , , ). -, 2003. 109121. 1984: ... i i ii i // i. . 47. , 1984. 1324. 1964: ... // 1962 . 1964. 3032. 1965: ... // 1963 . 1965. 4244. 1967: ... // . .II/35, 1967. 249. 1971: ... // . . 7, 1971. 187192. 1976: ... // . .8, 1976. 170176. 1949: ... . , 1949. 1952: ... . , 1952. 1948: ... // , 1, 1948. 139152. 1966: ... - // . . 106, 1966. 6668. 1978a: ... . , 1978. 1978b: ... // , 4, 1978. et al. 2000: .., .., ..

. . , 2000. 1952: ... i i i // i. .7. , 1952. 176181. 1956: ... i i i 19501951 . // . . IV, 1956. 145148. 1959a: ... i ii ii. , 1959. 1959b: ... . // . . 1, 1959. 166201. 1962: ... ( . ) // / , 102, 1962. 585. 1964: ... // VII (, 1964 .). , 1964. 1974: ... 1974 . // . 5409, 5409. 1974. 1975: ... // . . , 1977. 1821. 1975a: ... // . . 142, 1975. 310. 1975b: ... 1974 . // . . . I. , 1975. 6566. 1975c: ... - // 150 . . . . , 1975. 3940. 1978: ... // 1976 1977 . . XVII . . , 1978. 3738.

1979: ... // . . . 12. , 1979. 259283. 1981: ... - // SP, 56, 1981. 547. , 1975: .., ... 1975 . // . 5696, 5696. 1975. , 1982: .., ... // / . , 1982. 165320. , 1975: .., ... // 1974 , 1975. 450451. 1926: .. i i. II. i // . . I, 1926. 113119. 1986: ... . // , , . , 1986. 1980: ... . , 1980. 2002: ... . // : . , 2002. 5971. 1989: ... . , 1989. 1907: ... // XIII 1905 . .1. , 1907. 952. 1990: ... . // - . . . I . , 1990. , 1990. 7779. 1994: ... i i ii // i, 1. , 1994. 7988.

 90

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
. -. ii i i. . . . . . ii . . . . . . . . . -. . . . i i i i. . . . . . . ; . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . ; . . . i i. . . . . . . . - . -. AA Acta Archeologica. Budapest. AM Arheologia Moldovei. Bucureti. AMM Acta Moldavie Meridionalis. Vaslui. AU Iai Analele tiinifice ale universitii Al. I. Cuza din Iai. Iai. BAR British Archaeological Reports. Oxford. BCMI Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice. Bucureti, Craiova, Vlenii de Munte. BPS Baltic-Pontic Studies. Pozna. CA Cercetri arheologice. Bucureti. CI Cercetri istorice. Iai. DTJB Din trecutul judeniul Botoani. Botoani. MA Memoria antiqitatis. Piatra Neam, Bucureti. MCA Materiale i cercetri arheologice. Bucureti, Oradea, Tulcea. PZ Prhistorische Zeitschrift. Berlin. RA Revista Arheologica. Chiinu. SCIV Studii i cercetri de istorie veche. Bucureti. SCIVA Studii i cercetri de istorie veche i arheologie. Bucureti. SC Iai Studii i cercetri tiinifice, seria III-a, tiine sociale, Academia R.P.R., Filiala Iai. Iai. SP Studia Praehistorica. Sofia. EA Eurasia Antiqua. Zeitscrift fr Archologie Eurasiens. Mainz. ZfA Zeitschrift fr Archaologie. Berlin.

 91

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1. Periodisation schemes of Tripolye-Cucuteni (Majewski 1947). Fig.2. Correlation of numbers of sites of Precucuteni and Cucuteni , , periods in Romania (Marinescu-Blcu 1974; Monah, Cuco 1985). Fig.3. Tripolye BICucuteni settlements: 1Ariud; 2Berezovskaya GES; 3Bereti-dealul Bulgarului; 4Beretidealul Bzanului; 5Bonteti; 6Borisovka; 7Brad; 8Brnzeni IV; 9Brleleti; 10Bleti; 11Varatic XII; 12Vasilevka; 13Jora de Sus; 14Gorodnitsa-Gorodische; 15Gura Idrici; 16Giciana; 17Darabani I; 18Drua I; 19Drgueni-n deal la Luterie; 20Drgueni-Ostrov; 21Dumeti; 22Jura; 23Zarubintsy; 24Izvoare II; 25Calu-Piatra oimului; 26Costeti; 27Krasnostavka; 28Kudrintsy; 29Cucuteni-Cetuia; 30Lenkovtsy (settlement of Tripolye I period, investigations of K.K.Chernysh); 31Luka-Vrublevetskaya; 32Mereshovka; 33Mitoc-Prul lui Istrati; 34Mrgineni; 35Niezwiska II; 36Ttruca Nou III; 37Duruitoarea Nou I; 38Rusetii Nou I; 39Obreni; 40Ozarintsy; 41Onoprievka; 42Pechora; 43Poduri-dealul Ghindaru; 44Poineti; 45Polivanov Yar III; 46Puricani; 47Putineti II; 48Putineti III; 49Rezina; 50Ruginoasa; 51Sabatinovka I; 52Scnteia; 53Badragii Vechi IX; 54Duruitoarea Vechi I; 55Cuconetii Vechi I; 56Topile; 57Trueti; 58Trpeti IV; 59Fedeleeni; 60Bodeti-Frumuica I; 61Hbeti I. Fig. 4. Group of Tripolye BICucuteni settlements in Chiugur river valley, Northern Moldova: 1Drua I; 2Varatic VI; 3Duruitoarea Nou I; 4Duruitoarea Vechi; 5Varatic XII; 6Cuconetii Vechi I; 7Drua VI. Fig. 5. Group of Tripolye BICucuteni settlements in PokrovkaRudiTtruca Nou micro-zone (sites of Tripolye BI period; bsites of later periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni): 1Ttruca Nou III; 2Ttruca Nou XIV; 3Balini Veche I; 4Arioneti VI; 5Pokrovka I; 6Pokrovka II. Fig. 6. Group of Cucuteni settlements in Brlad river valley (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1958): 1Dumeti; 2Bleti (Cucuteni 4 phase); 3Poineti (Cucuteni 3 phase). Fig. 7. Pottery shapes of Tripolye BICucuteni A period: ICuconetii Vechi I; IIDrua I; IIIJura. Fig. 8. Ttruca Nou III: correlation of different types of pottery shape in the occupation layer. Fig. 9. Drua I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Dwelling 1. Fig. 10. Drua I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes as found in Dwelling 2. Fig. 11. Drua I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Excavated Area III (Dwellings 3 and (partially) 4, 5). Fig. 12. Cuconetii Vechi I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Dwelling 1. Fig. 13. Jura: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in different assemblages: 1Dwelling IV; 2Dwelling III. Fig. 14. Brnzeni IV: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in the pit. Fig. 15. Correlation of shares of recoverable vessels and the total share of bowls, beakers and kitchen ware in different ceramic assemblages. Fig. 16. Drua I: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Fig. 17. Duruitoarea Nou I: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Fig. 18. Brnzeni IV: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Fig. 19. Jura: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Fig. 20. Cuconetii Vechi I: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Fig. 21. Ttruca Nou III: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Fig. 22. Dynamics of decoration pattern development in certain pottery forms from North-Moldavian site assemblages: 1percentage of pear-shaped vessels, jars and binoculars with incised and fluted decorations; 2percentage of beakers with fluted and polychromatic decoration.  92

Fig. 23. Schemes of pottery forming. Flat-bottom scheme: 1jar; 2bowl; 3lid. Round-bottom scheme: 4beaker; 5pedestaled spherical vessel. Fig. 24. Pottery forming techniques, Drua I: 1support forming; 23forming of handles; 56scraping. Fig. 25. Bone tools that could be used for pottery forming and ornamentation: 13Sabatinovka I ( 1933); 46, 9Luka-Vrublevetskaya ( 1953); 78Drgueni (Crmaru 1977). Fig. 26. Traces of turning, Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului (Cucuteni AB period). Fig. 27. Examples of decoration techniques: 12Vidra (Boian culture); 34, 6Izvoare I (Precucuteni culture); 5Floreti (Precucuteni II); 7Cuconetii Vechi I (Tripolye BICucuteni A period). Fig. 28. Incised and fluted decorations on the pottery of Tripolye BICucuteni A period: 12, 56Drua I; 34Cuconetii Vechi I. Fig. 29. Drua I: bowls. Fig. 30. Drua I: pear-shaped vessels, lids, jars and beakers that ornate with fluted decorations with red-and-white painting. Fig. 31. Drua I: pear-shaped and two-tier vessels. Fig. 32. Drua I: beakers. Fig. 33. Drua I: pottery with fluted decoration. Fig. 34. Drua I: polychromatic ware. Fig. 35. Drua I: polychromatic ware. Fig. 36. Drua I: miniature vessels. Fig. 37. Duruitoarea Nou I: vessels with incised and fluted decorations. Fig. 38. Duruitoarea Nou I: vessels with bichromatic painting. Fig. 39. Duruitoarea Nou I: polychromatic ware. Fig. 40. Varatic XII: various types of pottery (investigations of V. M. Bikbaev). Fig. 41. Duruitoarea Vechi: spherical and pear-shaped vessels. Fig. 42. Duruitoarea Vechi: various types of pottery. Fig. 43. Brnzeni IV: bichromatic pottery. Fig. 44. Brnzeni IV: pottery painted in -style and kitchen ware. Fig. 45. Drgueni: correlation of different decor types (Crmaru 1977). Fig. 46. Putineti II: relative percentages of different decor types in Dwelling 1 (Sorochin 2002). Fig. 47. Putineti III: relative percentages of different decor types (Sorochin 2002). Fig. 48. Cuconetii Vechi I: incised and fluted ware. Fig. 49. Cuconetii Vechi I: incised and fluted ware (8Marchevici 1997). Fig. 50. Cuconetii Vechi I: various types of pottery (89, 12Marchevici 1997). Fig. 51. Cuconetii Vechi I: incised, fluted and painted pottery. Fig. 52. Cuconetii Vechi I: a monocular item (Marchevici, 1997). Fig. 53. Badragii Vechi IX: polychromatic beakers. Fig. 54. Trueti: incised and fluted pottery (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999, not to scale). Fig. 55. Trueti: incised, fluted and painted pottery (18by Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999, not to scale; 911according to T.S.Passeks sketches). Fig. 56. Ttruca Nou III: bowls. Fig. 57. Ttruca Nou III: incised, fluted and kitchen ware. Fig. 58. Ttruca Nou III: incised and fluted pottery. Fig. 59. Ttruca Nou III: incised and fluted pottery. Fig. 60. Darabani I: 12fragments of binocular items; 3polychromatic jar (according to T.S.Passeks sketches, not to scale).  93

Fig. 61. Vasilevka ( 1994). Fig. 62. Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului: 12incised pottery; 38bichromatic ware. Fig. 63. Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului: 15, 89pottery painted in - and -styles, 7style , 6bichromatic painting. Fig. 64. Niezwiska II: painted pottery ( 1962). Fig. 65. Niezwiska II: polychromatic pottery (according to K.K.Chernyshs sketches). Fig. 66. Kudrintsy: polychromatic pottery. Fig. 67. Synchronization of settlements in Northern Moldavia and adjacent territories of Ukraine and North-Eastern Romania. Fig. 68. Jura: 110vessels from Dwelling IV. Fig. 69. Jura: 17vessels from Dwelling IV; 8Dwelling III. Fig. 70. Jura: 112Dwelling III. Fig. 71. Jura: 18Dwelling III; 910pottery from the settlement area. Fig. 72. Jura: 15scanning of ornaments (1, 5Dwelling III, see: Fig. 43/7, 44/4; 23Dwelling III, see: Fig. 45/2, 9); 6beaker fragment from Dwelling III; 78finds from the settlement area; 9fluted pear-shaped vessel from Dwelling IV. Fig. 73. Comparison of structures of ceramic assemblages of North-Moldavian (Drua I) and Southern settlements (Jura). Fig. 74. Solonceni II: incised, fluted and painted pottery. Fig. 75. Poineti: 13polychromatic ware (not to scale); 45round-bottom vessels (Vulpe 1953). Fig. 76. Hbeti: incised and fluted pottery (Dumitrescu et al. 1954, not to scale). Fig. 77. Hbeti: painted pottery (Dumitrescu et al. 1954, not to scale). Fig. 78. Izvoare, various types of pottery: 1 Izvoare I; 211Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957, not to scale). Fig. 79. Frumuica: polychromatic and bichromatic painted pottery (Matas 1946, not to scale). Fig. 80. Jora de Sus: incised, fluted and painted pottery (1112Sorochin 1996). Fig. 81. Rusetii Nou I: incised, fluted and painted pottery (210 1970). Fig. 82. Berezovskaya GES: incised, fluted and painted pottery. Fig. 83. Sabatinovka I: incised, fluted and painted pottery. Fig. 84. Pottery from settlements of South Bug basin: 12Krasnostavka ( 1980); 37, 9Borisovka (as sketched by T.S.Passek and K.K.Chernysh); 8Pechora ( 1959b); 10Luka-Vrublevetskaya. Fig. 85. Monocular and binocular ware: 1Lenkovtsy; 23Ariud (Lszl 1924, not to scale); 4Cucuteni (Schmidt 1932, not to scale); 5Niezwiska II ( 1962); 67Rusetii Nou I ( 1970); 89excavations by V.V.Khvojka in Middle Dnieper region, Tripolye BII period (8 1926, not to scale). Fig. 86. Binocular and monocular ware: 1Duruitoarea Nou ( 1974); 2, 3, 8Cuconetii Vechi I (3Marchevici 1997); 4Drua I; 5Krasnostavka (Passek 1935); 6excavations by V.V.Khvojka in Middle Dnieper region, Tripolye BII period ( 1983); 7Sabatinovka I. Fig. 87. Distribution of different types of monocular and binocular ware during Tripolye BICucuteni period. Fig. 88. Local variants at Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 123 stage: ICentral, settlements of Hbeti I and Cucuteni type; IIEast-Carpathian, settlements of Izvoare II1 and Frumuica type, IIasettlements of Ariud type in South-Eastern Transylvania; IIINorth-Moldavian, settlements of Trueti and Cuconetii Vechi, Polivanov Yar III and Ttruca Nou III type; IVEastern, settlements of Borisovka and Zarubintsy, Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I type. Fig. 89. Local variants at Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4 stage: ICentral, settlements of Fedeleeni type; IIEastCarpathian, settlements of Izvoare II2 type; IIINorth-Moldavian, settlements of Drua and Drgueni type, IIIsettlements of Nezvisko II type in Upper Dniester; IVEastern, settlements of Krasnostavka and Onoprievka type; V Southern, settlements of Bereti and Jura type. Fig. 90. Synchronization of settlements of various local variants of Tripolye BICucuteni . Fig. 91. Helical and snake-like ornaments of PrecucuteniTripolye period: 15, 13, 1617Floreti I; 6, 9, 12Traian-Dealul Viei (Marinescu-Blcu 1974); 7Izvoare I (Vulpe 1957); 8Slobodka-Zapadnaya (,  94

 1987); 10Trpeti II; 11Gigoeti-Trudeti (Marinescu-Blcu 1974); 14Grenovka ( 1993); 15Lenkovtsy ( 1959a). Fig. 92. Variations of helical pattern stylization in Tripolye Precucuteni and Tripolye BICucuteni periods: 1, 910Cuconetii Vechi I; 2, 67Trpeti IIIII; 3Gigoeti (Marinescu-Blcu, 1974); 4, 1516Frumuica (Matas 1946); 5Hbeti (Dumitrescu et al. 1954); 8Izvoare I; 1112Lenkovtsy ( 1959); 13Traian-Dealul Fntnilor (Dumitrescu 1945, Cucuteni period); 14Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957). Fig. 93. Running S-shaped helices in decors of Tripolye BICucuteni period: 1Trueti (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999); 2Cuconetii Vechi I; 3Drua I; 4Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului. Fig. 94. Painted S-shaped helical patterns of Tripolye BICucuteni and Tripolye BIICucuteni periods: 12Frumuica (Matas 1946); 34Cucuteni (Schmidt 1932); 5Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957); 6Jura; 78Traian-Dealul Fntnilor (Dumitrescu 1945); 9Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului; 10Drgneti-Curtea Boiaresca. Fig. 95. Mutual ceramic imports of Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia cultures: 13Bernovo-Luka; 4Jora de Sus; 5Hrova (Popovici, Haotti 1990); 6, 6, 7, 8Brilia IIa (Haruche 1959); 9Carcaliu (Lzurc 1991). Fig. 96. Mutual ceramic imports of Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia cultures: 1Bernovo-Luka; 2Bagrineti VII; 3Aleksandrovka; 4Timkovo; 5Crbuna; 6Gansk; 7Jora de Sus; 8Rusetii Nou I; 9Brad; 10Gura Idrici; 11Vidra; 12Tangru; 13Novonekrasovka I; 14Medgidia; 1516Licoteanca; 17Brilia; 18Hrova; 19Carcaliu; 20Novoselskoye; 21Nagornoye II; 22Taraclia; 23Stoicani, 24Rmnicelu; 25Mgurele; 26Chireu. Fig. 97. Finds of Tripolye-Cucuteni imports in Gumelnia settlements and Gumelnia imports in Tripolye APrecucuteni and Tripolye BICucuteni A sites. Fig. 98. Disc-shaped pendants and Vidra-type axes. 1Izvoare, a pendant made of an animal scull (Vulpe 1957). Copper disc-shaped pendants: 2Hbeti hoard (Dumitrescu 1957); 34Crbuna hoard ( 1998). Clay discshaped pendants: 5, 7Drgueni (Crmaru 1977); 6Hbeti (Dumitrescu et al. 1954); 89Drua I. Clay models of axes: 10Cucuteni (Schmidt 1932); 11Cuconetii Vechi I; 1213Hbeti; 14Berezovskaya GES; 15Cucuteni-Cetuia (Vulpe 1975, not to scale). Fig. 99. Anthropomorphic figurine with disc-shaped pendant, Frumuica (Matas 1946). Fig. 100. Bowl fragment of Petreti culture, Izvoare (Vulpe 1957). Fig. 101. Spreading of copper articles from Gumelnia area and of their clay imitations: 1Luka-Vrublevetskaya; 2Cuconetii Vechi; 3Drua I; 4Drgueni; 5Putineti; 6Ruel; 7Hbeti; 8Cucuteni ; 9Brad; 10Ruginoasa; 11Trpeti; 12; 13Rusetii Nou I; 14Berezovskaya GES; 15Malna; 16Slatina; 17Tangru; 18Vidra; 19Ruse. Fig. 102. Cucuteni ware: 16Drua I; 78Duruitoarea Nou I (sketches of K.K.Chernysh); 910Varatic XII (finds of V.M.Bikbayev). Fig. 103. Cucuteni ware: 13Berezovskaya GES; 4Drgueni (Crmaru 1977, not to scale); 56Bereti (Dragomir 1982, not to scale); 7Krasnostavka ( 1989, not to scale); 8Jura; 9Niezwiska II (sketch of K.K.Chernysh); 10Solonceni II ( 1998). Fig. 104. Cucuteni ware in pottery assemblages of Tripolye BI and Gumelnia cultures: 1Berezovskaya GES; 2Sabatinovka I; 3Jora de Sus; 4Rusetii Nou I; 5Cainara; 6Mirnoye; 7Krasnostavka; 8Jura; 910Putineti II III; 11Rezina; 12Vasilevka; 13Drua I; 14Duruitoarea Nou I; 15Varatic XII; 16Drgueni; 17Fedeleeni; 1819Bereti; 20Taraclia; 21Novoselskoye; 22Carcaliu; 23Hrova. Fig. 105. Shell-tempered pottery from Strilcha Skelya. Fig. 106. Tripolye ceramic imports and pottery of Dnieper-Donets culture from Middle Dnieper region: 17Chapayevka-Lipovskij wildlife reserve; 810Chapayevka 2; 1113Chapayevka 1; 1416Chehovka.

 95

Higher Dniester area and Pruth basin L. Kozowski Period of Niezwiska-type ware A-period Period of bichrome ware Period of polychrome ware of Bilche-Zlota (Verteba) type Period of polychrome ware of Koshilovtsy type 2. Zaleschiki phase O. Kandyba

Cucuteni, Romania H. Schmidt Precucuteni

Middle Dnieper aria, South Bug basin, Middle Dniester T. Passek V. Khvojka Tripolye A Tripolye BI

1. Niezwiska phase ) Shipentsy A group ) Zaleschiki group

Tripolye BII

A-culture

Gorodnitsa phase 1. Bilche-Zlota phase B-period 2. Koshilovtsy phase

Tripolye CI (I)

B-culture

Tripolye CII (II)

Fig. 1. Periodisation schemes of Tripolye-Cucuteni (Majewski 1947).

Fig. 2. Correlation of numbers of sites of Precucuteni and Cucuteni , , periods in Romania (Marinescu-Blcu 1974; Monah, Cuco 1985).

 96

Fig. 3. Tripolye BICucuteni settlements: 1Ariud; 2Berezovskaya GES; 3Bereti-dealul Bulgarului; 4Bereti-dealul Bzanului; 5Bonteti; 6Borisovka; 7Brad; 8Brnzeni IV; 9Brleleti; 10Bleti; 11Varatic XII; 12Vasilevka; 13Jora de Sus; 14Gorodnitsa-Gorodische; 15Gura Idrici; 16Giciana; 17Darabani I; 18Drua I; 19Drgueni-n deal la Luterie; 20Drgueni-Ostrov; 21Dumeti; 22Jura; 23Zarubintsy; 24Izvoare II; 25Calu-Piatra oimului; 26Costeti; 27Krasnostavka; 28Kudrintsy; 29Cucuteni-Cetuia; 30Lenkovtsy (settlement of Tripolye I period, investigations of K.K.Chernysh); 31LukaVrublevetskaya; 32Mereshovka; 33Mitoc-Prul lui Istrati; 34Mrgineni; 35Niezwiska II; 36Ttruca Nou III; 37Duruitoarea Nou I; 38Rusetii Nou I; 39Obreni; 40Ozarintsy; 41Onoprievka; 42Pechora; 43Poduri-dealul Ghindaru; 44Poineti; 45Polivanov Yar III; 46Puricani; 47Putineti II; 48Putineti III; 49Rezina; 50Ruginoasa; 51Sabatinovka I; 52Scnteia; 53Badragii Vechi IX; 54Duruitoarea Vechi; 55Cuconetii Vechi I; 56Topile; 57Trueti; 58Trpeti IV; 59Fedeleeni; 60Bodeti-Frumuica I; 61Hbeti I.  97

Fig. 4. Group of Tripolye BICucuteni settlements in Chiugur river valley, Northern Moldova: 1Drua I; 2Varatic VI; 3Duruitoarea Nou I; 4Duruitoarea Vechi; 5Varatic XII; 6Cuconetii Vechi I; 7Drua VI.

 98

Fig. 5. Group of Tripolye BICucuteni settlements in PokrovkaRudiTtruca Nou micro-zone (sites of Tripolye BI period; bsites of later periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni): 1Ttruca Nou III; 2Ttruca Nou XIV; 3Balini Veche I; 4Arioneti VI; 5Pokrovka I; 6Pokrovka II.

Fig. 6. Group of Cucuteni settlements in Brlad river valley (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1958): 1Dumeti; 2Bleti (Cucuteni 4 phase); 3Poineti (Cucuteni 3 phase).  99

Fig. 7. Pottery shapes of Tripolye BICucuteni A period: ICuconetii Vechi I; IIDrua I; IIIJura.

 100

Ttruca Nou III, 1996

Fig. 8. Ttruca Nou III: correlation of different types of pottery shape in the occupation layer.

Drua I, 1982, Dwelling 1

Fig. 9. Drua I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Dwelling 1.  101

Drua I, 1983 (Dwelling 2)

Fig. 10. Drua I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes as found in Dwelling 2.

Drua I, 1984 (Dwelling 3, partially 4 and 5)

Fig. 11. Drua I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Excavated Area III (Dwellings 3 and (partially) 4, 5).

 102

Cuconetii Vechi I, 1976 (Dwelling 1)

Fig. 12. Cuconetii Vechi I: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in Dwelling 1.

Jura, 1952, 1954 (Dwelling IV) 1

Jura, 1952, 1954 (Dwelling III) 2

Fig. 13. Jura: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in different assemblages: 1Dwelling IV; 2Dwelling III.  103

Brnzeni IV, 1981 (Pit)

Fig. 14. Brnzeni IV: correlation of different types of pottery shapes in the pit.

Cuconetii Vechi I/1

Drua I/I

Jura III

Brnzeni IV

Drua I/III

Ttruca Nou III

Fig. 15. Correlation of shares of recoverable vessels and the total share of bowls, beakers and kitchen ware in different ceramic assemblages.

Drua I/II

 104

Jura IV

Shapes

Ornaments

0 ~100 4-5 ~20 4-5 II

1 I 180-200 12-15 3 2-3

Cauldrons and pithoi Hemispherical bowls Conical bowls Pedestaled bowls Pear-shaped vessels Jugs Pots Binoculars and monoculars Anthropomorphic vessels Beakers Spherical vessels Two-tired vessels Cylinder-conic bowls

1 1 ~35 ~35 16 ~60 2 110-120

1 V ? IV ~50 ~70 ~10 1 4-5

III

Fig. 16. Drua I: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls Pedestaled bowls Pear-shaped vessels Jugs Pots Binoculars and monoculars Anthropomorphic vessels Beakers Spherical vessels Two-tired vessels III + Ornaments 0 + I + + II + + + + IV + + + + + + + + + + V + + + 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 17. Duruitoarea Nou I: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls Pear-shaped vessels Jugs Binoculars and monoculars Beakers Two-tired vessels Spherical vessels Hemispherical bowls III 1 1 Ornaments 0 2 I 5 2 1 1 2 2 IV 2 1 V 1 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 18. Brnzeni IV: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3 bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles.  105

Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls

Ornaments

0 12 1 I

4 IV

4 6 1

1 5 13 1 1

Pedestaled pear-shaped vessels Pots Jugs Monoculars Pedestaled bowls Beakers Spherical vessels Pedestaled spherical vessels Pear-shaped vessels Binoculars

1 2 II III 2 2

7 11 3 1 1 2

Fig. 19. Jura: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls Pear-shaped vessels Jugs Pots Binoculars Pedestaled bowls Anthropomorphic vessels Beakers Spherical vessels III 19 1(?) II 22 6 Ornaments 0 15 I 44 12 6 1 IV 1 2 7 10 3 1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 20. Cuconetii Vechi I: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles. Ornaments 0 80 11 2 I ~90 6 10 11 5 10 II 4 ~90 III IV 3 3 1 2 3 4 5

Shapes Cauldrons and pithoi Conical bowls Pedestaled bowls

Pear-shaped vessels Jugs Pots Binoculars and monoculars Beakers Spherical vessels

Fig. 21. Ttruca Nou III: correlation of pottery shapes and decor types. 0without decoration, 1incised decoration, 2fluted decoration; 3bichromatic painting; 4polychromatic painting; 5proto- or -group styles.  106

Cuconetii Vechi I/1

Ttruca Nou III

Drua I/III

Drua I/I

Drua I/II

Cuconetii Vechi I/1

Ttruca Nou III

Drua I/III

Drua I/I

Drua I/II

Cuconetii Vechi I/1

Ttruca Nou III

Drua I/III

Drua I/I

Drua I/II

Cuconetii Vechi I/1

Ttruca Nou III

Drua I/III

Drua I/I

Drua I/II

Fig. 22. Dynamics of decoration pattern development in certain pottery forms from North-Moldavian site assemblages: 1percentage of pear-shaped vessels, jars and binoculars with incised and fluted decorations; 2percentage of beakers with fluted and polychromatic decoration.

 107

Fig. 23. Schemes of pottery forming. Flat-bottom scheme: 1jar; 2bowl; 3lid. Round-bottom scheme: 4beaker; 5pedestaled spherical vessel.

Fig. 24. Pottery forming techniques, Drua I: 1support forming; 23forming of handles; 56scraping.

 108

Fig. 25. Bone tools that could be used for pottery forming and ornamentation: 13Sabatinovka I ( 1933); 46, 9Luka-Vrublevetskaya ( 1953); 78Drgueni (Crmaru 1977).

Fig. 26. Traces of turning, Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului (Cucuteni AB period).

 109

Fig. 27. Examples of decoration techniques: 12Vidra (Boian culture); 34, 6Izvoare I (Precucuteni culture); 5Floreti (Precucuteni II); 7Cuconetii Vechi I (Tripolye BICucuteni A period).

 110

Fig. 28. Incised and fluted decorations on the pottery of Tripolye BICucuteni A period: 12, 56Drua I; 34Cuconetii Vechi I.

 111

Fig. 29. Drua I: bowls.

 112

Fig. 30. Drua I: pear-shaped vessels, lids, jars and beakers that ornate with fluted decorations with red-and-white painting.

 113

Fig. 31. Drua I: pear-shaped and two-tier vessels.

 114

Fig. 32. Drua I: beakers.

 115

Fig. 33. Drua I: pottery with fluted decoration and bichromatic painting.

 116

Fig. 34. Drua I: polychromatic ware.

 117

Fig. 35. Drua I: polychromatic ware.

 118

Fig. 36. Drua I: miniature vessels.

 119

Fig. 37. Duruitoarea Nou I: vessels with incised and fluted decorations.

 120

Fig. 38. Duruitoarea Nou I: vessels with bichromatic painting.

 121

Fig. 39. Duruitoarea Nou I: polychromatic ware.

 122

Fig. 40. Varatic XII: various types of pottery.

Fig. 41. Duruitoarea Vechi: spherical and pear-shaped vessels.  123

Fig. 42. Duruitoarea Vechi: various types of pottery.

 124

Fig. 43. Brnzeni IV: bichromatic pottery.

 125

Fig. 44. Brnzeni IV: pottery painted in -style and kitchen ware.

 126

Fig. 45. Drgueni: correlation of different decor types (Crmaru 1977).

Fig. 46. Putineti II: relative percentages of different decor types in Dwelling 1 (Sorochin 2002).

Fig. 47. Putineti III: relative percentages of different decor types (Sorochin 2002).

 127

Fig. 48. Cuconetii Vechi I: incised and fluted ware.

 128

Fig. 49. Cuconetii Vechi I: incised and fluted ware (8Marchevici 1997).

 129

Fig. 50. Cuconetii Vechi I: various types of pottery (89, 12Marchevici 1997).

 130

Fig. 51. Cuconetii Vechi I: incised, fluted and painted pottery.

 131

Fig. 52. Cuconetii Vechi I: a monocular item (Marchevici, 1997).

Fig. 53. Badragii Vechi IX: polychromatic beakers.

 132

Fig. 54. Trueti: incised and fluted pottery (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999, not to scale).

 133

Fig. 55. Trueti: incised, fluted and painted pottery (18by Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999, not to scale).

 134

Fig. 56. Ttruca Nou III: bowls.

 135

Fig. 57. Ttruca Nou III: incised, fluted and kitchen ware.

 136

Fig. 58. Ttruca Nou III: incised and fluted pottery.

 137

Fig. 59. Ttruca Nou III: incised and fluted pottery.

 138

Fig. 60. Darabani I: 12fragments of binocular items; 3polychromatic jar (3according to T.S.Passeks sketch, not to scale).

Fig. 61. Vasilevka ( 1994).

 139

Fig. 62. Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului: 12incised pottery; 38bichromatic ware.

 140

Fig. 63. Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului: 15, 89pottery painted in - and -styles, 7style , 6bichromatic painting.

Fig. 64. Niezwiska II: painted pottery ( 1962).  141

Fig. 65. Niezwiska II: polychromatic pottery (according to K.K.Chernyshs sketches).

 142

Fig. 66. Kudrintsy: polychromatic pottery.

 143

Periods and phases

NorthEast of Romania Corltni

Left bank of the Middle Pruth

Bassin of river Rut

Middle Dniester

Upper Dniester Babino-Yama Niezwiska II

Cucuteni 1

Drgneti

Vasilevka

Tripolye BI/2 Cucuteni 4

Drgueni

Brnzeni IV Duruitoarea Vechi Duruitoarea Nou Putineti II Drua I Putineti III

Kaplevka Perkovtsy Voloshkovo Krinichki

Kudrintsy (?)

Mitoc Tripolye BI/1 Trueti Cucuteni 13

Cuconetii Vechi Badragii Vechi

Ttruca Nou III Polivanov Yar III Darabani I Luka-Vrublevetskaya LukaUstinskaya Lenkovtsy Bernovo-Luka

Gorodnitsa

Tripolye Precucuteni III

Fig. 67. Synchronization of settlements in Northern Moldavia and adjacent territories of Ukraine and North-Eastern Romania.

 144

Fig. 68. Jura: 110vessels from Dwelling IV.

 145

Fig. 69. Jura: 17 vessels from Dwelling IV; 8 Dwelling III.

 146

Fig. 70. Jura: 112 Dwelling III.

 147

Fig. 71. Jura: 18 Dwelling III; 910 pottery from the settlement area.

 148

Fig. 72. Jura: 15scanning of ornaments (1, 5Dwelling III, see: Fig. 68/7, 69/4; 23Dwelling III, see: Fig. 70/2, 9); 6beaker fragment from Dwelling III; 78finds from the settlement area; 9fluted pear-shaped vessel from Dwelling IV.  149

Fig. 73. Comparison of structures of ceramic assemblages of North-Moldavian (Drua I) and Southern settlements (Jura).

 150

Fig. 74. Solonceni II: incised, fluted and painted pottery.

Fig. 75. Poineti: 13 polychromatic ware (not to scale); 45 round-bottom vessels (Vulpe 1953).

 151

Fig. 76. Hbeti: incised and fluted pottery (Dumitrescu et al. 1954, not to scale).

 152

Fig. 77. Hbeti: painted pottery (Dumitrescu et al. 1954, not to scale).

 153

Fig. 78. Izvoare, various types of pottery: 1 Izvoare I; 211 Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957, not to scale).

 154

Fig. 79. Frumuica: polychromatic and bichromatic painted pottery (Matas 1946, not to scale).

 155

Fig. 80. Jora de Sus: incised, fluted and painted pottery (1112 Sorochin 1996).

 156

Fig. 81. Rusetii Nou I: incised, fluted and painted pottery (210 1970).

 157

Fig. 82. Berezovskaya GES: incised, fluted and painted pottery.

 158

Fig. 83. Sabatinovka I: incised, fluted and painted pottery.

 159

Fig. 84. Pottery from settlements of South Bug basin: 12Krasnostavka ( 1980); 37, 9Borisovka (as sketched by T.S.Passek and K.K.Chernysh); 8Pechora ( 1959b); 10Luka-Vrublevetskaya.

 160

Fig. 85. Monocular and binocular ware: 1Lenkovtsy ( 1959, not to scale); 23Ariud (Lszl 1924, not to scale); 4Cucuteni (Schmidt 1932, not to scale); 5Niezwiska II ( 1962); 67Rusetii Nou I ( 1970); 89excavations by V.V.Khvojka in Middle Dnieper region, Tripolye BII period (8 1926, not to scale).  161

Fig. 86. Binocular and monocular ware: 1Duruitoarea Nou ( 1974); 2, 3, 8Cuconetii Vechi (3Marchevici 1997); 4Drua I; 5Krasnostavka (Passek 1935); 6excavations by V.V.Khvojka in Middle Dnieper region, Tripolye BII period ( 1983); 7Sabatinovka I.  162

Fig. 87. Distribution of different types of monocular and binocular ware during Tripolye BICucuteni period.

 163

Fig. 88. Local variants at Tripolye BI/1Cucuteni 123 stage: ICentral, settlements of Hbeti I and Cucuteni type; IIEast-Carpathian, settlements of Izvoare II1 and Frumuica type, IIasettlements of Ariud type in SouthEastern Transylvania; IIINorth-Moldavian, settlements of Trueti and Cuconetii Vechi, Polivanov Yar III and Ttruca Nou III type; IVEastern, settlements of Borisovka and Zarubintsy, Berezovskaya GES and Sabatinovka I type.

 164

Fig. 89. Local variants at Tripolye BI/2Cucuteni 4 stage: ICentral, settlements of Fedeleeni type; IIEastCarpathian, settlements of Izvoare II2 type; IIINorth-Moldavian, settlements of Drua and Drgueni type, IIIsettlements of Niezwiska II type in Upper Dniester; IVEastern, settlements of Krasnostavka and Onoprievka type; V Southern, settlements of Bereti and Jura type.

 165

Periods and phases

Carpathian lands Carpathian local variant Trpeti III

Central Moldavian Plateau Central local variant

Low Pruth, Brlad Plateau

Dniester lands

Southern (Solonceni) local variant

Tripolye BII Cucuteni AB

Traian-Dealul Fntnilor

Hui

Orcheul Vechi Solonceni II2 Popenki Southern local variant

Carpathian local variant Izvoare II2 Tripolye BI/2 Cucuteni A4

Central local variant Fedeleeni Rezina Ruginoasa

Bereti Scnteia Puricani Dumeti

Jura

Carpathian local variant Tripolye BI/1 Frumuica I Cucuteni A13 Izvoare II1ab Trpeti IV Cucuteni A Topile Hbeti

Central local variant Gura Idrici Poineti Jora de Sus Rusetii Nou I

Trpeti V Izvoare I Tripolye A Precucuteni III

Trgu Negreti

Crbuna Aleksandrovka SlobodkaZapadnaya Timkovo

Fig. 90. Synchronization of settlements of various local variants of Tripolye BI Cucuteni .

 166

Middle Pruth Nothern Moldavia Middle Dniester

Upper Dniester Upper Dniester (Zaleschiki) local variant Zaleschiki Babino-Yama Niezwiska II

Southern Bug lands, Bug-Dnieper interfluves Eastern local variant Shkarovka

North-Moldavian local variant Radulianii Vechi Drgneti Polivanov Yar II Vasilevka

Corltni

North-Moldavian local variant Drgueni Brnzeni IV Duruitoarea Vechi Duruitoarea Nou Drua I Putineti II Putineti III Kaplevka Kudrintsy Perkovtsy Voloshkovo Krinichki Ttruca Nou XIV

Eastern local variant Onoprievka Krasnostavka

North-Moldavian local variant Mitoc Trueti Cuconetii Vechi Polivanov Yar III Ttruca Nou III Darabani Luka-Vrublevetskaya Gorodnitsa

Eastern local variant Zarubintsy Ozarintsy Borisovka Sabatinovka I Berezovskaya GES

II

Lenkovtsy Bernovo-Luka

Sabatinovka II Gaivoron Grebeniukov Yar

 167

Fig. 91. Helical and snake-like ornaments of PrecucuteniTripolye period: 15, 13, 1617Floreti I; 6, 9, 12Traian-Dealul Viei (Marinescu-Blcu 1974); 7Izvoare I (Vulpe 1957); 8Slobodka-Zapadnaya (, 1987); 10Trpeti II; 11Gigoeti-Trudeti (Marinescu-Blcu 1974); 14Grenovka ( 1993); 15Lenkovtsy ( 1959a).

 168

Fig. 92. Variations of helical pattern stylization in Tripolye Precucuteni and Tripolye BICucuteni periods: 1, 910Cuconetii Vechi I; 2, 67Trpeti IIIII; 3Gigoeti (Marinescu-Blcu, 1974); 4, 1516Frumuica (Matas 1946); 5Hbeti (Dumitrescu et al. 1954); 8Izvoare I; 1112Lenkovtsy ( 1959); 13Traian-Dealul Fntnilor (Dumitrescu 1945, Cucuteni period); 14Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957).

 169

Fig. 93. Running S-shaped helices in decors of Tripolye BICucuteni period: 1Trueti (Petrescu-Dmbovia et al. 1999); 2Cuconetii Vechi I; 3Drua I; 4Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului.

 170

Fig. 94. Painted S-shaped helical patterns of Tripolye BICucuteni and Tripolye BIICucuteni periods: 12Frumuica (Matas 1946); 34Cucuteni (Schmidt 1932); 5Izvoare II (Vulpe 1957); 6Jura; 78TraianDealul Fntnilor (Dumitrescu 1945); 9Drgneti-Valea Ungureanului; 10Drgneti-Curtea Boiaresca.

 171

Fig. 95. Mutual ceramic imports of Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia cultures: 13Bernovo-Luka; 4Jora de Sus; 5Hrova (Popovici, Haotti 1990); 6, 6, 7, 8Brilia IIa (Haruche 1959); 9Carcaliu (Lzurc 1991).

 172

Fig. 96. Mutual ceramic imports of Tripolye-Cucuteni and Gumelnia cultures: 1Bernovo-Luka; 2Bagrineti VII; 3Aleksandrovka; 4Timkovo; 5Crbuna; 6Gansk; 7Jora de Sus; 8Rusetii Nou I; 9Brad; 10Gura Idrici; 11Vidra; 12Tangru; 13Novonekrasovka I; 14Medgidia; 1516Licoteanca; 17Brilia; 18Hrova; 19Carcaliu; 20Novoselskoye; 21Nagornoye II; 22Taraclia; 23Stoicani, 24Rmnicelu; 25Mgurele; 26Chireu.

 173

Periods of Gumelnia culture

Tripolye-Cucuteni imports in Gumelnia settlements Hrova (Cernavoda I layer; Popovici, Haotti 1990) Carcaliu (Lzurc 1991) Brilia IIb (Haruche, Dragomir 1957) Taraclia ( 1986; , 1990) Novoselskoye I (, 1999) Nagornoye II () Stoicani (Petrescu-Dmbovia 1953) Brilia IIa (Haruche 1959) Rmnicelu (Haruche, Bounegru 1997) Licoteanca (Dragomir 1970) Hrova (Gumelnia A2 layer) Bneasca (Haruche, Bounegru 1997) Chireu (Haruche, Bounegru 1997) Novonikolskoye II (, 1999) Novonekrasovka I ( 1983) gurele (Marinescu-Blcu 1978) Tangru (Berciu 1961) Vidra (Rosetti 1934)

Gumelnia imports and imitations in Tripolye-Cucuteni sites

Periods of Tripolye-Cucuteni culture

1 B2

Tripolye I/2 Cucuteni 4

Jora de Sus (Sorokin 1996) Rusetii Noi I ( 1970) Gura Idrici (Coma 1987) Brad (Ursachi 1990) Tripolye BI/1 Cucuteni 123

1 2

Bernovo-Luka (State Hermitage, SPb) Crbuna ( 1998) Traian-Dealul Fntnilor (Dumitrescu 1945) Aleksandrovka ( . 1989) ( . 1989) Hansk ( 1983) Bagrineti VII ( 1992)

Tripolye Precucuteni III

Fig. 97. Finds of Tripolye-Cucuteni imports in Gumelnia settlements and Gumelnia imports in Tripolye APrecucuteni and Tripolye BICucuteni A sites.

 174

Fig. 98. Disc-shaped pendants and Vidra-type axes. 1Izvoare, a pendant made of an animal scull (Vulpe 1957). Copper disc-shaped pendants: 2Hbeti hoard (Dumitrescu 1957); 34Crbuna hoard ( 1998). Clay disc-shaped pendants: 5, 7Drgueni (Crmaru 1977); 6Hbeti (Dumitrescu et al. 1954); 89Drua I. Clay models of axes: 10Cucuteni (Schmidt 1932); 11Cuconetii Vechi I; 1213Hbeti; 14Berezovskaya GES; 15Cucuteni-Cetuia (Vulpe 1975, not to scale).  175

Fig. 99. Anthropomorphic figurine with disc-shaped pendant, Frumuica (Matas 1946).

Fig. 100. Bowl fragment of Petreti culture, Izvoare (Vulpe 1957).

 176

Fig. 101. Spreading of copper articles from Gumelnia area and of their clay imitations: 1Luka-Vrublevetskaya; 2Cuconetii Vechi; 3Drua I; 4Drgueni; 5Putineti; 6Ruel; 7Hbeti; 8Cucuteni ; 9Brad; 10Ruginoasa; 11Trpeti; 12; 13Rusetii Nou I; 14Berezovskaya GES; 15Malna; 16Slatina; 17Tangru; 18Vidra; 19Ruse.

 177

Fig. 102. Cucuteni ware: 16Drua I; 78Duruitoarea Nou I (sketches of K.K.Chernysh); 910 XII.

 178

Fig. 103. Cucuteni ware: 13Berezovskaya GES; 4Drgueni (Crmaru 1977, not to scale); 56Bereti (Dragomir 1982, not to scale); 7Krasnostavka ( 1989, not to scale); 8Jura; 9Niezwiska II (sketch of K.K.Chernysh); 10Solonceni II ( 1998).  179

Fig. 104. Cucuteni ware in pottery assemblages of Tripolye BI and Gumelnia cultures: 1Berezovskaya GES; 2Sabatinovka I; 3Jora de Sus; 4Rusetii Nou I; 5Cainara; 6Mirnoye; 7Krasnostavka; 8Jura; 910Putineti II III; 11Rezina; 12Vasilevka; 13Drua I; 14Duruitoarea Nou I; 15Varatic XII; 16Drgueni; 17Fedeleeni; 1819Bereti; 20Taraclia; 21Novoselskoye; 22Carcaliu; 23Hrova.

 180

Fig. 105. Shell-tempered pottery from Strilcha Skelya.

 181

Fig. 106. Tripolye ceramic imports and pottery of Dnieper-Donets culture from Middle Dnieper region: 17Chapayevka-Lipovskij wildlife reserve; 810Chapayevka 2; 1113Chapayevka 1; 1416Chehovka.

 182